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 - R

(1973 - 2012)



RACISM & TERRITORIALISM: White people can no more rightfully lay an exclusive claim, of any constitutional, legal, juridical kind, to the whole surface of a continent or country or any large segment of it, that goes beyond private and associated real estate, than any aboriginals, natives or other immigrants or any colored mixtures of them could or any religions or ideologies. All that any such grouping or any other voluntary grouping, could rightly claim, would be full non-territorial autonomy or voluntary and non-territorial segregation or integration, but certainly not compulsory and territorial segregation or integration. - JZ, 20 Sep. 89, 10.10.89, 9.9.04.

RACISM: [Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964], many governments in southern states forced people to segregate by race. Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these state laws, but failed. So they appealed to the federal government, which responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But this federal law didn't simply repeal state laws compelling segregation. It also prohibited voluntary segregation. What had been mandatory became forbidden. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Act were people free to make their own decisions about who they associated with.” - Harry Browne – RACISM & FORCED SEGREGATION, VOLUNTARY SEGREGATION, VOLUNTARY INTEGRATION VS. FORCED INTEGRATION, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS, DISCRIMINATION & INTEGRATION, PRIVATE & OFFICIAL


RACISM: An end to racial strife through voluntary segregation and voluntary integration. – JZ, n.d.

RACISM: Full exterritorial autonomy for all those with a black or white bias, and those with a green and blue bias, too – and for those without any color preference. – But no territorial monopoly for any one of them! - JZ, 20.9.88, 14.5.08. - See e.g.: Page 70, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. – TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, DISCRIMINATION

RACISM: Let everyone conduct his own racial policy – if he has any. – JZ, 24.9.80. – That would exclude the persecution of involuntary victims. – No human being was born as a victim, least of all an involuntary one. Those, who treat any human being as their property and involuntary victim, do thereby reveal that they have more in common with wild beasts of prey, rather then with genuine humans and thus have no more rights than wild beasts of prey have, namely, not to be killed unnecessarily and cruelly. – At least in the future this rule will also be applied to the most helpless human victims, the not yet born babies. Until then the abortionists and the anti-abortionists would better establish different exterritorially autonomous societies for themselves and confine their disagreements to verbal battles rather than turning them into a legalized or illegal civil war. – I would rather like to see mankind continued by opponents of abortion than by abortionists, who seem to be more likely to fall for fallacies, immoral premises and conclusions and who appear to possess less moral sense. – The whole controversy should at least be compiled in digitized argument mapping. Otherwise, too many people get lost in this kind of jungle, as they do get lost in all the options of e.g. chess games. I was told that there are over 15,000 books on chess. – A comprehensive declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties would also help. - JZ, n.d. & 20.7.12.

RACISM: Man’s Most Dangerous Myth – The Fallacy of Race, 5th. rev. edition, N.Y., Oxford University Press, 1974, 542 p., by Ashley Montagu, indexed and with an extensive bibliography. – I doubt that any racist has ever read it. – JZ, 1.4.09. - Probably territorial nationalism and power addiction have led to the suppression and murder of even more people, of the same and other races or ethnic origins. - JZ, 19.2.11. – All of us have common ancestors in Africa! – JZ, 20.7.12.

RACISM: Rabuschka’s conclusion? “Under conditions of voluntary exchange in free markets, racial tensions and conflict are kept to a minimum.” – Richard W. Grant, The Incredible Bread Machine, 1956, p.106. – Yes, if one adds panarchies to all the other free markets, i.e., a free market for all kinds of political, economic and social systems, all for volunteers only and without any territorial monopoly, even for ignorant and prejudiced people, not only for enlightened ones. – JZ, 30.4.08. – MARKET, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM

RACISM: Racism combines territorialism and collective responsibility with the myth of the “chosen people” and is as such an indication of ignorance, prejudice, low moral sense and low intelligence. – JZ, 3.9.98, 9.5.08.

RACISM: Racism has been supported in this country not despite of, but thanks to governmental power and politics. Reverse racism, thinking that government is competent to force people to integrate, just as it once forced them to segregate, is just as political and just as disastrous. It has not worked. Its product has been hatred rather than brotherhood. Brotherhood could never be a political product. (*) It is purely personal. In racial matters, as in all other matters concerning individuals, the lack of government would be nothing but beneficial. What, actually, can government do for black people in America that black people could not do better for themselves, if they were permitted the freedom to do so? I can think of nothing. - - Jobs? Politically and governmentally franchised unions do more to keep black men from good jobs than do all the Bull Connors of the South. …” - Karl Hess, Death of Politics, p.15. – So does legislatively introduced and upheld monetary despotism, which makes jobs and sales scarce or difficult rather than easy to get. – JZ, 30.4.08. - (*) Not one of territorial politics, anyhow. Under full exterritorial autonomy for all it could grow, gradually, or even fast. – Voluntary integration rather than enforced integration! – Imagine the antagonism that would arise if different families were coercively integrated by governments, even if they were of the same faith, ideology, or race! - JZ, 30.4.08. - NEGROES, BLACKS, SELF-HELP, GOVERNMENT, COMPULSORY INTEGRATION VS. VOLUNTARY INTEGRATION, PANARCHISM

RACISM: Territorial nation States are one of the prime causes for racist feelings and notions. As such they cannot provide a genuine solution but, rather, prevent it. If all political powers were changed from territorial ones to exterritorial autonomy over volunteers only, then the racists could voluntarily segregate themselves as much as they like but would have no territorial power over the voluntary communities of other ethnic people and over those communities, which had voluntarily integrated the different races. I for one would not want any racists in my community. – JZ, 1.4.92, 11.5.08.

RACISM: The fact is that most people in the world, even in Canada, are racialistic. (White Canadians luckily are not outnumbered 4:1; so we can afford to be self-righteous.”) – Bonne Posma, in OPTION 2/77, on South Africa. – Even when people are outnumbered by another race, as long as they are not forced into the same territorial organization but can sort themselves out, individually, according to their racial, religious or ideological preferences, they need not clash but can peacefully coexist with each other in the same country and world-wide. – JZ, 30.4.08. – Maybe, in the far future, the last and small remaining racist communities will become tourist attractions, as extreme oddities. They could practise their spleens on provate or cooperatively owned property but not territorially. – JZ, 20.7.12. - TERRITORIALISM. PANARCHISM

RACISM: The most efficient action, at least in the long run, that one could undertake, in my opinion, to reduce racism and opposition to more “ethnic’ immigrants, legal and illegal ones, and hatred against “foreign” competitors, based of fear of international competition for one’s sales efforts (goods, services and labor, JZ, 28.1.12.), would probably consist in doing away with involuntary unemployment and sales difficulties by abolishing monetary and financial despotism and replacing them by full monetary and financial freedom. – JZ, 1.12.92. – Both could be introduced with the least friction by allowing them to be practised at first only among volunteers for these liberties. – Under panarchism that would happen automatically. - JZ, 12.5.08.

RACISM: To reduce the effects of racism to rightful and harmless proportions let it be practised only among volunteers, in their own clubs and exterritorially autonomous communities, always at their own risk and expense. E.g. at the risk of losing enlightened and tolerant people as members, customers and investors. They will have to withstand competition from communities without racial prejudices and thus the number of their members, customers and investors will tend to become smaller and smaller. They will be tolerated but, at the same time, widely boycotted by all people preferring to deal only with non-racist people and communities. – Most decent people will gladly abstain from any close contact with them. They will also consider it to be either a sign of honor and certainly not a sign of dishonor to be slandered by them. All verbal aggression by racists will be counted to the discredit of the racists. It would not be penalized but at most countered with the most enlightened and deflating expressions found. Only their aggressive actions will be strongly countered and penalized, more strongly than ever before. – Racist communities only for racists and only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy – with the same freedom for all who are not racists. - JZ, 27.1.05.

RADICALISM & PANARCHISM: Any kind of radicalism for any kind of radicals!

RADICALISM: A radical is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air.” – Franklin Roosevelt. – That is true for many radical utopians, including him, – but, certainly, not for all radicals. Especially not for panarchists, who demand experimental freedom for all kinds of utopias that can be tolerantly practised among their supporters. – Nor does his criticism apply to most of the intentional community people doing their own things for or to themselves. - JZ, 30.4.08.

RADICALISM: Even today freedom is still the only truly radical idea.” - – Tibor Machan, “Liberty and Culture”, p. 99. – Panarchism, providing individuals the option to be as free or unfree as they want to be, is a still more radical and much more tolerant idea. – Full individual freedom was never as yet the ideal of everybody and isn’t even today, as yet. – JZ, 12.5.08.

RADICALISM: Freedom is still the most radical idea of all.” – Nathaniel Branden, PLAYBOY letter, May 73. – Especially when it goes beyond limited but still territorial governments. – JZ, 30.4.08, 20.7.12. – FREEDOM

RADICALISM: If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist.” - Joseph Sobran - VS. LIBERALISM, MODERN, DIS., PANARCHISM, ANARCHISM, EXTREMISM

RADICALISM: Laissez Fare is perhaps the most radical philosophy one can hold.” – Howard Samson, REASON, 9/72. – Yes, provided it becomes extended into panarchism, i.e. into “laissez-faire” for all kinds of political, economic and social systems as well – all only for their volunteers and under personal law. – JZ, 30.4.08, 20.7.12. – PANARCHISM, LAISSEZ-FAIRE

RADICALISM: Major flaws in government (*) arise from a fear of making radical internal changes even though a need is clearly seen.” – Darwi Odrade, quoted by Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse Dune, p.197. - Probably an invented name. – Clearly seen by whom and by how many? Are they free to secede and do their own things for themselves? - - (*) With governments he probably meant only territorial governments. Once there are only exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers - then at least some of them will rapidly adopt any rightful and useful change option that is made known to them. Territorial governments may require years to decades before they do away with some abuses and some abuses, which, by now, they have already continued for centuries, including their territorial organization. – JZ, 14.5.08, 19.2.11. - GOVERNMENT, FEAR, CHANGE, TERRITORIALISM

RADICALISM: Moderate reformers always hate those who go beyond them.” – J. A. Proude, 1818-1894. – Would that remain the same once both have the panarchist option for the changes they want? Territorially there can only be one winner, the reformer or the radical. Exterritorially both could win and demonstrate the system they prefer. Peaceful coexistence becomes possible for them. –JZ, 30.4.08. - REFORMERS, REVOLUTIONARIES, HATRED, OPPOSITION, ENMITY, ANIMOSITY

RADICALISM: Most of today’s radicals are not radicals but just barbarians.” – Pat Brookes, 9/72. – Why not let them do their barbaric things to themselves? – JZ, 30.4.08.

RADICALISM: Most self-styled “radicals” are radically wrong about the soundness of their “alternatives”. Nevertheless, their right should be recognized to experiment among themselves with them, as long as they can and want to. It will be a learning experience for them and also a deterrent example for all others, who, thereupon, will not build such traps for themselves. – JZ, 2.7.87, 14.5.08.

RADICALISM: Radicals are only to be feared when you try to suppress them. You must demonstrate that you will use the best of what they have to offer.” – Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune, p.28. – Why should one have to? It would be enough to grant them and all other dissenters full experimental freedom among their volunteers. – JZ, 30.4.08. – PANARCHISM, DIS.

RADICALISM: The aim should not be to be more radical but more sensible, rational, logical and consistent than others. Radicalism of the ordinary type usually reveals short-circuits in thinking to the thoughtful observer. – JZ, 18.3.73. – It is, usually, not sensible, rational, logical, consistent and moral enough. However, volunteers should be freed to apply any kind of radicalism – among themselves. – Panarchism, with its individual secessionism, provides a safety valve against excesses of radicalism applied to involuntary victims of it. - JZ, 30.4.08, 20.7.12. – PANARCHISM, FUNDAMENTALISTS, ZEALOTS, FANATICS

RADICALISM: The more God, the more Devil. The Establishment is the chief cause of radicalism. – THE DIAGONAL RELATIONSHIP No. 1. – True for territorial establishments. Untrue for those which are only exterritorially autonomous and this only for their kind of volunteers. This kind of liberty would offer a peaceful realization option to all radicals and thus keep them from deteriorating into becoming terrorists or violent revolutionaries. – JZ, 30.4.08, 20.7.12. – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, ESTABLISHMENT, STATES, TERRORISM

RADICALISM: The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched.  He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” - H. L. Mencken. - His crime consists in considering a country and its people as an entity and in wanting to change them collectively, instead of promoting voluntary and free change for all who desire it for themselves. To that extent all territorialist "radicals" are not radicals themselves but conservatives and part of the problem. Moreover, the ideals of many of the "radicals" are not, objectively, better than those ideals and practices that they fight against. Even the most oppressive and supposedly "capitalistic" countries do not forcefully prevent anyone from sharing his own property and labors with others. Even flawed, i.e., involuntarily mixed economies, do still oppose some compulsory sharing and are to that extent superior to those "idealists" who want to compulsorily share everything, especially their pennies and the pounds of the dissenting others. - JZ, 22.8.02. - He is also mostly driven by territorialist and collective responsibility notions as well as very flawed other ideas, beliefs or ideologies, for which territorialism leaves no outlet for their energies, ideas and institutions or attempts to realize their ideals among themselves. – JZ, 26.12.07. - Why drive him into desperate and violent actions rather than allowing him or her to live under a self-chosen alternative system, under full exterritorial autonomy, always at the own expense and risk only? Territorialism breads terrorists and violent revolutionaries. – JZ, 8.1.08. - & TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY DISSENTERS, HATE, SPITE, LACK OF PATRIOTISM, REVOLUTIONARIES, TERRORISM

RADICALISM: The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.” - Mark Twain. - Full experimental freedom for both - and all others! - JZ, 26.11.02. - & CONSERVATISM

RADICALISM: We look to the Conservative Government to move with quickening strides towards a genuine alternative society whose advance would both inspire and harness the radical urges of your young people. This will not be achieved by an 8 per cent cut in total taxation when Labour increased it by 45 % between 1964 and 1970 or in selling off small fringe sectors of the nationalized industries …” - Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Goodbye to Nationalization. – I doubt that the UK or USA conservatives will be able to sufficiently appeal to all the different radicals among the youths with any single territorial scheme. However, if it would adopt panarchism then conservatives as well as radicals, libertarians as well as anarchists, republicans and monarchists as well as xyz other groups of volunteers could all do their own things for or to themselves, without any outsiders having any grounds for complaints. This approach works in all spheres where it has been adopted. Only political, economic and social systems still demand, quite wrongfully and irrationally, a territorial monopoly for themselves, which leads to numerous clashes and mutual intolerance between such contenders for territorial power. – JZ, 30.4.08.

RADIO PROGRAM: DWIGHT JOHNSON wrote yesterday: Interesting Discussion of Panarchy: - I am only interested in texts. – However, I do appreciate that by now such radio or video shows remain permanently accessible for those, who are interested in them. - JZ, 7.10.11.

RAEDER, NICHOLAS: He favored individual secession in his magazine: SOL III, in June 1971: "To better serve his life-action, the human joins in association with other humans. But, if those conditions necessary for human life sustainance are then limited, the purpose in joining the association is diminished. If those conditions are severely limited or removed, to serve his life-action, the human must then remove himself from the association or change it." - Sustenance or maintenance? – JZ – INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

RAND, AYN, Competing Governments, with criticism of her views by JZ, in PP 7, June 1966, plan 153, page 26ff, & in ON PANARCHY II in PEACE PLANS 506. Compare Roy Child’s later: Open Letter to Ayn Rand, on the same subject. Long after R. C. withdrew this criticism but never stated why he did so, not even when Wendy McElroy asked him in a tel. talk to do so. – JZ, 17.12.04. – To several fans of Ayn Rand that I contacted no further discussions of this issue are known. Do you know of any? Can you supply me with them? - JZ, 27.12.04. - - EXTRACT FROM PEACE PLANS No. 7, June 1966: 153.) COMPETING GOVERNMENTS - "A recent variant of anarchist theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called 'competing governments.' Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business the proponents of 'competing governments' take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to 'shop' and to patronize whatever government he chooses. - - Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer: Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean. - - One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms 'competition' and 'government'. Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at ally not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: Suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his nextdoor neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A. proceeds to Mr. Jones' house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B., who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith's complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there." - Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government, published a) in "The Virtue of Selfishness a New Concept of Egoism", Signet pocket book, No. P 2602, The New American Library of World Literature, 501 Madison Ave., New York, New York 10022 and b) in Essays on Liberty, vol. XI, FEE:  Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington‑on Hudson, New York 10533, 1964. - Her above quoted essay collection is essential for every lover of liberty. The above comment is just one weak spot among many brilliantly written essays. One of them deals exclusively with voluntary taxation. It is the best article concerning this problem which I have found so far. - The following is not an attack on Ayn Rand but rather an illustration for the need to realize the information revolution as soon as possible, at least partially, in the field of reform ideas. I find it extremely deplorable that the ideas, practices and proposals of freedom are so widely spread in various and often rare and forgotten publications and known only partially by so many different people, who have not sufficient contact with each other, that even such outstanding libertarians as Ayn Rand can be as inadequately informed concerning certain important points - as she seems to be according to her above comment. - - What we need urgently is a well-ordered archive of all kinds of reform ideas, including amendments and criticism, an archive, which ought to be operated by an information service or should be offered online or on disc (with updates online or on discs). Hereby I appeal again to all my readers to help me establish such an archive and service. (To a limited extent the Internet provides such a service now. But it is not yet sufficiently specialized and sorted out. Much rubbish is published together, uncriticized, together with sound material. And the sound material, all too often, encounters only popular erros, prejudices and spleens as "objections" or “comments”. - JZ, 21.10.11.) - I have a non‑profit organization in mind, financed out of subscriptions, fees, and sales of various specialized periodicals. (Compare PEACE PLANS 20. So much of this material could now be very cheaply offered in specialized CDs. - JZ, 21.10.11.) - Meanwhile I beg you again to sent me your ideas for my private archive which one day, I hope, will help to form a basis for such an archive accessible to the public. Compare peace plan 47. (Also PEACE PLANS 20 & 183.) all available now from me, in German, until they are offered online or on a CD.) - The main and I think first publication proposing a general archive for ideas is Solneman's "Ideen Archiv", written in German, published 1947 in Gmunden, Austria. (My father, Kurt H. Zube, 1905-1991, used the pseudonym K.H.Z. Solneman. I can now offer this book, in English and German, not only in microfiche, in PEACE PLANS 183, but also via an email attachment. Likewise, digitized, his second book on the Ideas Archive – but only in German. And my own book on this subject, especially for libertarians: PEACE PLANS 20, digitized, in English, via email, until they are offered online or on a CD. - JZ, 27.12.04. - "Ideas, their authors and promoters, are mankind's most precious treasure." ‑ Solneman. - My own need for such an archive is shown by the fact that I do not know the literature Ayn Rand refers to. She wrote this article in December 1963 and did not supply any references. Can any reader supply me with further information on those writings and people she attacked? - JZ - (By Jan. 2005 I have still not got this information. This is typical. Often it is as deeply "buried", even for those who are very much interested in it. The Ideas Archive could, finally, bring supply and demand in this sphere systematically together and thus establish, for the first time, what has long been wrongly presumed to exist already, namely: "a free market for ideas".  - "Check your premises!" she used to say. – JZ, 27.1.05.) - (Whom or what did she attack? I still don't know! - JZ, 21.10.11, 20.7.12.) - In other passages, e.g. in 'Collectivized Rights', written in June 63 and published in the above quoted pocket book, Ayn Rand has already gone far towards the concept of 'competing governments' - although she still favors "limited" but uniform and territorial ones: "Any group or 'collective', large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the 'rights' of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking. Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants' right of free association and free trade. (By 'legitimate', I mean: non-criminal and freely formed, that is, a group which no one was forced to join.)… This is true of all legitimate groups or associations in a free society: partnerships, business concerns, professional associations, labor unions (voluntary ones), political parties, etc. It applies also to all agency agreements: the right of one man to act for or represent another or others is derived from the rights of those he represents and is delegated to him by their voluntary choice, for a specific, delimited purpose as in the case of a lawyer, a business representative, a labor union delegate, etc. - A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does posses. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. - Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob. - Any doctrine of group activities that does nor recognize individual rights is a doctrine of mob rule or legalized lynching." - If, like me, you do not know anybody who has expressed this better, you will have to buy this book. Just one more relevant quotation: In:"The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests" she says in the end: "All of the above discussion applies only to the relationships between rational men and only to a free society. In a free society, one does not have to deal with those who are irrational. One is free to avoid them." - The variant of what A. Rand likes to call 'anarchist' theory is not as recent as she assumes: Johann Gottlieb Fichte dealt with it, in his book on the French Revolution, back in 1793. - "Social Statics" by Herbert Spencer was published in 1850 and P. E. de Puydt's article "Panarchy", in French, in 1860. Compare peace plans 91, 109, 129, 134. – See also my sub-series to PEACE PLANS, called ON PANARCHY, which comes so far to 24 volumes, on 24 microfiche. - Later, largely upon the urgings and efforts of Peter Wraith, it was also digitized by me. The version he paid for and got from an agency, was not good enough. - JZ, 21.10.11.) There is also my all too rough and incomplete collection of panarchist and monetary freedom files in my first CD. I have run out of copies. My system refused to make further copies. But I do intend to bring out an updated and indexed edition as soon as I can, with much more material. – Any help in that project is very welcome. – JZ, 18.12.04.) (It is still on my “to do” or projects list! – J.Z., 20.7.12.) - Apparently, A. R. had read neither of these three nor many of hundreds of literature references and historical precedents for "competing governments", personal law and exterritorial autonomy. My still very incomplete bibliography on this subject comes to 56 pages and I would like to include the reference or several references that she attacked. (They are included in this A to Z compilation. - My growing “encyclopaedia” of digitized and alphabetized notes on and references for panarchism came to almost 3 Mbs on 18.12.04. The current total is at least ten times as large. – J.Z., 20.7.12. - Whilst A. Rand believed to see inherent differences between governments and other associations, the quoted philosophers recognized the similarities according to natural rights. - 1. Spencer, in his chapter XIX/l said: "Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not." - 2. De Puydt wrote: "On the civil level we provide against unworkable households by legal separation or divorce. I suggest an analogous solution for politics, without having to circumscribe it with formalities and protective restrictions, for in politics previous associations leave no children or physical marks. ... What, basically, all preconceptions apart, is the function of any government? As I have indicated above, it is to supply its citizens with security, in the widest sense of the word, under optimum conditions." (Plan l09, pages 7, 8 and 13.) (His essay, in French, German, English, Italian and Spanish, Portuguese and Greek, is available on ) - 3. The relevant passages in Fichte's work were microfilmed in my early PEACE PLANS issues, of which issues 1-20 have been digitized and are available from me via email – until they are available online and or on CD. - Ulrich von Beckerath in "Public Insurance and Compensation Money" (published by Williams & Norgate Ltd., London, and deserving a reprint) writes on pages 78/79: (Now online, together with his other 2 monetary freedom books! – JZ, 18.12.04.) - "For the populations of the eighteenth century insurance was still something of a novelty, but they nevertheless fully recognized its value. They esteemed it so: highly that they found nothing more laudable to say in justification of the State than that it is a general insurance institution for mankind, taxes being its insurance premiums. (Thus in his Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, Laplace writes in the section treating of insurance companies: "A free people may be regarded as a large association the members of which mutually guarantee their possessions, by bearing proportionately the charges of such a guaranty."). Compare plans 138 and 157. - A question well put is already half answered. I would therefore slightly alter A. Rand's ironic question thus: A.R.: "Remember that forcible restraint of wrongdoers is the only service a rightful government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition between volunteer communities in the forcible restraint of criminals would have to mean." - Since I am not a criminal, I would not be afraid of this, for it would merely mean that exterritorial and autonomous governments would compete with each other for satisfied customers. Each of them would try to be more efficient in the protection of the rights of individual members against criminals among its members than the other governments are for their members. - Most offences would be dealt with in this way: Police A dealing only with customers of Government A, Police B with those of Government B only. - In the relatively few cases of "international" clashes, when there are arguments between citizens of different exterritorial and autonomous communities, we would have to resort to what should always be the common basis: natural rights of individuals. I think that Ayn Rand agrees with this. - I have no argument with her, either, when she says, ibid, page 103: "sovereignty ...  cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny." - Such organizations would have to be deprived of their power and disarmed, in future as well as today. Individual secession would be essential for this. - What would this mean in practice? - Government A, no matter to what extent (by unanimous consent) it would restrict the rights of its citizens (as long as they remain members), would always have to respect all natural rights of the members of other communities and would have to see to it that all its subjects do the same. - Article 25 of the constitution of the German Federal Republic (23/5/1949) is exemplary in this respect: "The general rules of International Law are part of the Federal Law. They take precedence before laws and establish directly rights and duties for all people living in the Federal Republic." - As a result of legal difficulties some criminals do today get away with crimes towards members of other communities, committed across a border. But this is certainly not an example to be followed by competing governments. - If the competing Government A would not stick to the rule to respect at least the rights of members of other communities, then it would and should naturally be checked by rightful resistance exercised by Governments B, C, and D. In this respect nothing would change. - It is very well possible that several competing governments would employ the services of one and the same police organization which has proved its effectiveness in free competition with other police forces. - Would clashes be inevitable? Even today the local, State, and national or federal police forces cooperate already to a certain extent. We should not simply assume that police forces could never be organized in a way that they would merely be eyes, ears, mouths and arms of territorial laws and courts. - The question of whether a crime was committed or not, is, as today, to be settled by courts, arbitration courts, possibly mixed courts. Whose laws ought to be applied? See the many historical precedents: Gibbon reported that under the Merovingians the law of the defendant was applied. The Ripuarian Law declares in favor of the right of the plaintiff. Between the three separate communities still existing in Morocco in 1955 (Arabs, Jews, Europeans), the law of the accused was applied. - I favor the right of the accuser and the more severe punishment when both codes punish an offence. The natural law would have to be the common basis for all court decisions. - - When A. Rand says: "Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean", she seems to imply a competition on which government would be able to impose the greatest number and greatest degree of restraints upon its victimized subjects. In this she seems to forget about the effect of voluntary membership, the freedom of customers to shop around and to settle only for restraints and a degree of restraints according to their liking. (Their voluntary members would be voluntary taxpayers. You do not voluntarily pay those representatives, who do not represent you and even infringe your rights. As a member of a volunteer militia for the protection of individual rights you would resist and throw out such agents. - JZ, 13.11.01.) - - "The truth is that there is not enough of the right kind of liberty; the fundamental liberty to choose to be free or not to be free, according to one's choice" ‑ said de Puydt. - (He merely asked for full consumer sovereignty for ALL "public services", quite in accordance with radical laissez-faire and free market economics, to which he explicitly refers.  - JZ, 13.11.01.) - Ayn Rand seemed to think that clashes between competing governments would be inevitable. - J. G. Fichte, in his book on the French Revolution answered this with: "No State becomes dangerous to another by existing in the same territory but only by having another and contrary interest. If all States were subject, like isolated men, to the rule of Natural Law, then such a conflict could not develop (as this law imposes a general prohibition to infringe the lawful freedom of others as long as they do not infringe one's own), unless in one or in both States the members felt obliged to act unjustly. This they are not supposed to do. They are therefore not entitled to complain about pressure of circumstances but ought to criticize their own malevolent intentions, instead. ... They need only be just and they could live mixed with and yet separated from each other; pursuing the most diverse enterprises." - Is the concept of "competing governments" really "devoid of any contact with or reference to reality ..."? - - Just consider: There is such a chaos in our methods of storing important ideas and other knowledge and in making it available that a philosopher like Ayn Rand has not yet come across this reality, though she would be immensely interested. (This situation is not yet sufficiently improved by the availability of search engines for information somewhere on the Internet. Often the sheer abundance of verbally somewhat related search results prevents individuals from finding the specific information that they do want. – J.Z., 20.7.12.) - Fichte mentions three rather common examples concerning exterritorial self‑rule: The aristocracy, the clergy and the Jews administered their own affairs for centuries with a large degree of independence. - The Order of the Maltese is a still existing example for exterritorial and autonomous volunteer communities with political powers. - The Huguenots refugees in the Prussian absolutist monarchy enjoyed the benefits of their own communal self‑administration; had even courts of their own and, naturally, their own education and church system. Hugo Erbe wrote an excellent book concerning their settlements in Prussia. - Thomas F. Millard in "The End of Exterritoriality in China", A.B.C. Press, Shanghai, 1931, mentions 91 publications dealing with the "unequal treaties" establishing exterritorial or extraterritorial communities. - Peace plan 136 mentioned some relevant historical examples. Peace plans 102, 135, 141 and 143 indicated how the concept of competing governments could help to bring peace and freedom to Vietnam. – JZ, n.d. & 20.7.12. - MILITIA, DEFENCE, PROTECTIVE SERVICES, PRIVATE POLICE FORCES, GUARD SERVICES ETC.

RAND, AYN, Competing Governments. In: The Nature of Government, in: The Virtue of Selfishness - a New Concept of Egoism, Signet Pocket Book, New American Library, N.Y. and in Essays on Liberty, FEE, vol. XI, 1964. There she attacked the idea of competing governments with insufficient arguments and without naming its defenders. See the criticism by Zube, John, in 1966 and R.A. Childs Jr. in 1969. -  On her misunderstandings of "competing governments": See: Replies by Roy Childs and John Zube. - Without a proper archive for ideas even very important ideas are rarely linked up with all their support and all their criticism. Their fate and that of their originators corresponds to that situation. Ideally, a good idea should need no more than e.g. a postcard to a center like an Ideas Archive or an entry on the Internet to be linked to all its evidence, pro and con, and all its supporters and opposition - and to find the most thorough proof or disproof for itself. The wastefulness in the current "market for ideas" is enormous and recognized by only all too few. - JZ, 17.1.99. - OBJECTIONS, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, OBJECTIVISM, IDEAS ARCHIVE

RAND, AYN, Hands Off! - A note from and on Ayn Rand, from PP 6, 3/1966, plan 137, p.19, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506: From: Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, Panther Pocket Books,  p.668‑70. - 137.) HANDS OFF  File: Pan Rand Ayn Hands Off - (From an early PEACE PLANS issue, No. 6, among the digitized ones, an extract in which Ayn Rand came close to the individualism and voluntarism of panarchy.) - "The creator  - denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited - went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy…  The secondhander, contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective. -  The 'common good' of a collective a race, a class, a State was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men's hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men: Actors change but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist [territorialist! – JZ] movements ask nothing for themselves. [Don’t they often finish as millionaires? – JZ.] But observe the results. - The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is hands off! - Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. [If only it had been, consistently and comprehensively! – JZ] This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man's right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else's. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience . ... - "I recognize no obligations towards men except one; to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society." - I added then: Miss Rand's novels are quite a recent and joyful discovery for me. I had long ago given up novels, suffering only now and then a relapse. Particularly the bestsellers are usually empty of ideas and confirm Laotse's dictum: "To be appreciated only by the few belongs to my value." - Miss Rand's books are the exception. Because of their mass‑appeal covers and the titles: Anthem, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, which become clear only after reading the books, I might have missed reading them for many more years. But a friend, Richard King, insisted on my reading them. I can only thank him and pass his recommendation on, especially regarding Atlas Shrugged. - Her books, other relevant philosophical and economic literature and a newsletter explaining her philosophy of "objectivism" were then available from: NBI Book Service, 120 E., 34th St., New York City. - By now they are almost universally available, new, also from Jim Peron, see below and often very cheaply second-hand. I do like such “second-handers” and often buy spare copies to pass on! - Recently a new Ayn Rand website was established in New Zealand, in addition to the numerous other ones already existing: This was done through Jim Peron’s - - He declared that it would be open to discussion from all points of view, i.e., not a site for „closed minds“ or 120 % Randians or Randian cultists. - I wish more libertarians would make use of his bookshop, the only libertarian shop front bookshop in the world, in Auckland, N.Z.  Ask Jim to put you on the e-mail list for new acquisitions, in which he usually adds abstracts. Mail orders are accepted: Jim Peron  I do not have the URL of his Aristotle Bookshop handy. – Once, in July 04, I had a chance to visit it, all too shortly. – But he had a large display for all the days of the ISIL conference in Rotorua. - JZ, 27.12.04. - In the meantime, Jim Peron has moved on, once again. I do not have his current email address. - JZ, 21.10.11.He may be in charge of the Laissez-Faire Bookshop by now. – JZ, 20.7.12.

RAND, AYN, The Nature of Government, in: The Virtue of Selfishness - a New Concept of Egoism, Signet Pocket Book, New American Library, N.Y. and in Essays on Liberty, FEE, vol. XI, 1964, attacked the idea of competing governments with insufficient arguments and without naming its defenders. See the criticism by myself, in 1966 and R. A. Childs Jr. in 1969. - On the misunderstanding of "competing governments" by Ayn Rand: Replies by Roy Childs and John Zube. - Somewhere in early PEACE PLANS issues. - See under ZUBE & CHILDS. - RAND, AYN: Competing Governments, with criticism of her views by JOHN ZUBE, in PEACE PLANS 7, June 1966, plan 153, page 26ff, & in ON PANARCHY II in PEACE PLANS 506.

RANDALL-MACIVER, D. & WILKEN, ANTHONYThe Political and Social Organization of the Berber People, ch.3. On the "cof" or "sof" organizations among them. They formed a kind of "biarchy". See plan 201 in PEACE PLANS No. 12. – J.Z.

RATES: Fees and subscriptions for wanted services rather than compulsory rates and other taxes largely for unwanted, or overpriced monopoly services or even for disservices rendered. – JZ, 15.4.89. – TAXATION, WELFARE STATE, VOLUNTARISM

RATES: How would you rate the services of your local government if rate payment were voluntary? Would you then pay more or less or anything at all for them or even demand indemnification from the council for damages you suffered from its imposed decisions? – JZ, 14.5.08. Q.

RATES: Rates don’t rate high with me in my scale of values. I would rather pay competitive market prices for what I want. – JZ, 22.3.75. – Alas, even most libertarians have not yet sufficiently contemplated the provision of “public services” otherwise than through territorial government monopolies, called “limited” governments, in spite of their territorial monopoly. – JZ, 30.4.08. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT, TAXES ON LAND-HOLDINGS

RATIONAL ANARCHISM: In Defence of Rational Anarchism, 1997/1998, with JZ comments: - By George H. Smith, November 23, 1997. - With some short comments by JZ. - Anarchism is a theory of the good society, in which justice and social order are maintained without the State (or government). Many anarchists in the libertarian movement (including myself) were heavily influenced by the epistemological and moral theories of Ayn Rand. According to these anarchists, Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds. - I call this "rational anarchism," because it is grounded in the belief that we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice. It is precisely because no (territorial - JZ) government can be established by means of reason and mutual consent that all Objectivists should reject that institution as unjust in both theory and practice. - Although it is sometime useful to distinguish between the meanings of "State" and "government," such distinctions are irrelevant to the present discussion, so I shall use the terms interchangeably. Following the classic discussion of the sociologist and historian Max Weber, I shall define the "State" as a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." – (As if any “community” that enforces membership or subordination to its laws and institutions, could be rightfully called a genuine community. Any genuine community is made up only of volunteers. The individual right to associate and to disassociate should assure that. Territorial States are remnants of wrongful absolute monarchism or of feudalism, under which whole countries and their population were treated as property of the monarchs, who as such, sometimes, e.g. through marriage or conquest, acquired whole other countries or who split up their territorial possessions, including their population, among their offspring. The population had no say on this. Obedience was enforced. To call such artificial constructions “communities” is insulting to the diverse populations involved and all their adult individuals.– JZ, 20.7.12.) The State is vested with the exclusive power to enact legislation, adjudicate legal disputes, enforce laws, etc., while forcibly preventing other individuals and associations from engaging in the same activities. The State, in other words, exercises a coercive monopoly in the enforcement of justice. (Also of injustices, on a vast scale! – J.Z., 20.7.12.) This ultimate power of decision-making is known in political theory as "sovereignty." In the words of the historian A. P. d'Entreves, "the problem of the birth of the modern State is no other than the problem of the rise and final acceptance of the concept of sovereignty." – (Collectivist, centralized, usurped and enforced sovereignty, ignoring or suppressing individual sovereignty and that of dissenting minorities. Very convenient in some respects to the territorial rulers but wrongful and often disastrous for their territorial subjects. – JZ, 20.7.12.)  The concept of sovereignty is the focal point of the current debate between anarchists and minarchists (a label coined by Sam Konkin for the advocates of minimal, or "limited," government). The fundamental problem is this: Where does the right of sovereignty come from, and how can it be justified? This is an especially difficult problem for those in the Lockeian tradition of minarchism - which, in this context, includes the followers of Ayn Rand. - John Locke (like Ayn Rand) believed that all rights belong to individuals. There are no special "group rights" that exist in addition to individual rights. The rights of all groups (including the group that calls itself a "government") must be based on, and in some way derived from, the rights of individuals. - I call this approach "political reductionism," because it maintains that the sovereign rights of a (legitimate) government are reducible to the rights of individuals. Political reductionism stands in opposition to political emergence theory, which argues that at least one right (usually the right to enforce the precepts of justice)  (Its “justice” included conquests, despotism, slavery and serfdom for centuries! – JZ, 20.7.12.) does not originally belong to individuals, but emerges only in civil societies under government. (Any genuine right, according to Kant, is associated with the authority to enforce it, in self-defence - towards those who would restrict it. - JZ) - Now, having presented this background material, I will address several key issues in the minarchist/anarchist controversy. - (1) According to John Locke, every person in an anarchistic state of nature would possess the "executive power" to enforce his own rights against the aggressive actions of others. But owing to various "inconveniences" (such as the likelihood of personal bias when acting as judge in one's own case), Locke argued that rational people would unanimously agree to leave this state of nature and join a "civil society," which would thereafter use majority rule to decide upon a particular form of government, such as constitutional monarchy, democracy, and so forth. - This "social contract" was Locke's way of accounting for our obligation to obey the political sovereign. Beginning with the rights of individuals, Locke tried to show how the executive power to enforce these natural rights would be delegated, through a process of consent, to government. Eighteenth-century Americans were chiefly indebted to John Locke for their belief in government by consent. - Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. (Nor did she ever clearly declare all genuine individual rights and liberties, just like most politicians, anarchists and libertarians fail to do. – JZ, 29.7.12.) Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem. - (2) Many of John Locke's critics -- such as David Hume, Josiah Tucker, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and Jeremy Bentham -- argued that the inner logic of consent theory, if consistently applied, will land us in anarchy. As these critics pointed out, no government has ever originated in consent, and there is no reason to suppose that individuals, in full possession of their natural rights, would ever subordinate themselves voluntarily to a government. (That is not true for the tribes that operated under personal law, for much of the written and unwritten history of man. – JZ, 20.7.12.) - I agree with these critics. If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent – then all (territorial - JZ) governments, past and present, have been illegitimate. - (There have been exterritorial or personal law governments, States or communities, that naturally do not fall under the definition of governments as territorial monopolists. - JZ) - Furthermore, I maintain that Objectivists, if they are to remain true to the consent doctrine, must embrace this kind of "practical anarchism" and condemn all historical governments as unjust. True, Objectivists insist that government can be justified in theory - though none (that I know of) has ever spelled out the necessary criteria - but this theoretically legitimate government has never existed anywhere on this earth. Nor can it exist anywhere except in what Edmund Burke called "the fairyland of philosophy." As Josiah Tucker (a contemporary of Burke) put it, the consent theory of government is "the universal demolisher of all governments, but not the builder of any." - (An excellent formulation against territorial governments and at the same time this theory IS the foundation for competing or consensual governments, panarchies, polyarchies etc. - JZ) - John Locke identified two fundamental problems that must be addressed by the political philosopher. First, what is the justification of the State? Second, assuming that we can justify the State in theory, what are the standards by which we can judge the legitimacy of a particular government? Too often minarchists deal only with the first question, while ignoring the second. - Suppose I am asked what could conceivably change my mind and cause me to endorse government, and suppose I give the following reply: "If I believed in the God of Christianity, and if I believed that God had dispatched a squad of angels to communicate with me personally, and if these angels told me that the State is a divine institution, ordained by God for the protection of human rights, and if these angels further informed me that anarchism would lead to widespread death and destruction - then, under these circumstances, I would abandon my anarchism in favor of minarchism." - But consider an important feature that would be missing from my newfound (newly found? - JZ) justification of the State. While believing that the State is justified, qua institution, I would not possess specific standards by which to judge whether a self-professed "government" is in fact a legitimate State at all, or whether it is merely a gang of usurpers and oppressors who claim to act on behalf of that divine institution. - As a remedy for this problem, suppose the angels provide me with a clear and unmistakable standard, to wit: "You will know legitimate rulers by the visible halos over their heads. This sign, and this sign alone, will mark the agents who are authorized by God to act on behalf of the State." Well, after looking around at the functionaries of existing governments, and after seeing no such halos, I would conclude that no one who presently claims to represent the State is morally authorized to do so. On the contrary, I would surmise that America is currently in a state of anarchy, since it contains no legitimate government - so, devoted minarchist that I am, I would dedicate my life to abolishing our wicked "government" and to exposing those Satanic politicians who fraudulently pose as functionaries of that divine institution, the State. - This is a species of the "practical anarchism" that Objectivists must logically endorse. For halos, they have substituted consent as the discernible sign of a legitimate government - and, like halos, consent is nowhere to be found in real-life governments. - (Statism of the territorial kind is the most wide-spread attitude. But it is nowhere complete enough or a general consent - as long as dissenters, individuals, minorities and not even, in some cases, the majority, are not free to opt out e.g., into exterritorial autonomy for their communities of volunteers only, all subscribing to one or the other supposed ideal. - JZ) - Hence, while defending the State in theory, these consent-minarchists should oppose all existing (territorial! - JZ) governments in practice. And this, I dare say, is a kind of minarchism that I can live with quite well - for we are more likely to be visited by angels than to find a (territorial - JZ) government (fully - JZ) based on consent. - (Here he ignores the numerous personal law communities that have existed for a long time and the few precedents that still do exist. - JZ) - (3) My next point will probably cause me to be branded as an psycho-epistemological pervert, but here it is: I am convinced that Ayn Rand was essentially an anarchist in substance, if not in name. She was at most a nominal governmentalist. If the conventional meaning of a word is to count for anything at all (and it should), then Rand's ideal "government" is in fact no government at all, but is merely a sheep in wolf's clothing. - (Agreed. She even was a Kantian, in the best moral and economic sense, in spite of her numerous slanders of the Kantian philosophy. - Alas, Kant also held her mini-government position. - JZ) - How can I make this outrageous claim? I base it on Rand's moral opposition to coercive taxation. The power of coercive taxation, as Alexander Hamilton said in THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, is the very life-blood of government. - (Herbert Spencer's remarks in Social Statics, XIX: The Right to Ignore the State, are here relevant, too. - JZ) - Indeed, the great debate over ratification of the United States Constitution centered on whether or not the federal government should have the power to tax. The Articles of Confederation had withheld this power from Congress, reserving it exclusively for the states. Many Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because they realized that the federal government, if granted the power to lay and collect taxes directly from the people, would strip the states of their sovereign authority. - If the defenders of either side in the ratification debate had encountered Rand's argument for "voluntary taxation," they would have assailed it, first, as a veritable contradiction in terms (which it is) (There is a history of voluntary taxation or contribution schemse, too, which should not be ignored. – JZ), and, secondly, as a rejection of sovereign government altogether (which it also is). Virtually every defender of government -- from John Locke to Thomas Jefferson to Ludwig von Mises - has recognized coercive taxation to be an essential component of sovereignty, a power without which no true government can exist. - The principle of "voluntary taxation" reduces Rand's "government" to a free-market protection agency, which, like every business, must either satisfy its customers or close up shop. What is to prevent a dissatisfied customer from withholding his money from a Randian "government," while subscribing instead to the services of another agency? Why cannot a landowner (or combination of landowners) refuse to pay for the services of their Randian "government," which they regard as inefficient, and take their business elsewhere? - The right to pay for services or not, according to one's own judgment, is a characteristic of the free market; it has no relationship, either theoretically or historically, to the institution of government. - (There are some historical precedents for voluntary taxation. See the articles on voluntary taxation e.g. in PEACE PLANS 14, 336, 420, 650, 870. A Google search for “voluntary taxation” does also offer many more search results than any individual could fully explore. – JZ, 20.7.12.) -  Even present governments do at least pretend that their compulsory taxes are really voluntary payments. - JZ) - There is no way a government can retain its sovereign power -- its monopoly on the use of legitimate force -- if it does not possess the power of compulsory taxation. - (Governments can finance themselves, temporarily, by another form of taxation, usually not classed as compulsory taxation, namely inflation, made possible by their central banks, their issue monopoly and legal tender privilege. - JZ) - When the nineteenth-century minarchist Auberon Herbert advanced his theory of "voluntary taxation," he was widely praised by anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, who embraced him as one of their own. But he was assailed by fellow minarchists, such as Herbert Spencer, who correctly pointed out that Herbert's position was indistinguishable from anarchism. - (In his earlier writings, e.g. Social Statics, chapter IXX, Spencer also insisted upon the rightfulness of voluntary taxation or contributions, in a very persuasive way. - JZ) - Likewise, Rand's position on taxation places her squarely in the anarchist camp - her idiosyncratic use of the word "government" notwithstanding. We should focus in this debate on the concept of government and its essential characteristics, not on the word usage of a particular writer. - (4) I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be (rightfully - JZ) forced to surrender any of their natural rights. (Jews in the Nazi’s extermination camps were forced into helping in the extermination of their fellow Jews. Their only alternative was to join immediately those on the path to the gas chambers.) Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government. - As Ayn Rand has said, the lives of other people are not yours to dispose of. Yet this is precisely what every government attempts to do. A government initiates physical force (or the threat of force) to prohibit other people from exercising their right to enforce the rules of justice. (Either every person has this executive power, or no one does, according to the principle of political reductionism.) A government, while engaging in certain activities which it claims are just, coercively prevents other people from engaging in those selfsame activities. - By what moral means, I ask, does a government come to possess this exclusive right? A government cannot bestow justice on an action that would be unjust if undertaken by someone else. Nor can a government, through force or arbitrary decree, render an action unjust when undertaken by someone else, if that same action is just when undertaken by government. The principles of justice are objective and therefore universal; they apply equally and without exception to every human being, as does every rational precept and procedure. A mathematical computation, for example, cannot be correct when computed by a government, and incorrect when computed by someone else. A deductive syllogism, if valid for those in government, is equally valid for those outside of government. Murder, if wrong when committed by an individual, is equally wrong when committed by a government. - Likewise, an activity, if moral when pursued by a government, is equally moral when pursued by someone else. All this should be obvious to those who agree with the principles put forth by Ayn Rand. If, therefore, the principles of justice are objective (i.e., knowable to human reason), then a government can no more claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force than it can claim a monopoly on reason. - Those minarchists who claim that justice can prevail only under government must implicitly defend the view that justice is either subjective or intrinsic. If justice is subjective, if it varies from one person to the next, then government can be defended as necessary to establish objective rules. Likewise, if justice is intrinsic to government itself, if whatever a government decrees is necessarily just, then government is justified automatically. - If, however, justice is neither subjective nor intrinsic, but instead is objective -- i.e., if it can be derived by rational methods from the facts of man's nature and the requirements of social existence -- then the principles of justice are knowable to every rational person. This means that no person, group of persons, association, or institution whether known as "government," "State," or by any other name - can rightfully claim a legal monopoly in matters pertaining to justice. Rational anarchism, in short, is simply the application of Ayn Rand’s theory of objective knowledge to the realm of justice. - As far as I know, the first sustained attack on legal pluralism came from Marsilius of Padua in the fourteenth century. In his DEFENDER OF THE PEACE, Marsilius attacked the legal pluralism of his day - especially as it pertained to the political authority of the Church and he maintained that one authority, and one alone, should have sovereign power in a given territory. - In defense of this view, Marsilius argued that to deny the right of sovereignty leads ultimately to a logical contradiction. Someone – some person, association or institution - must have the authority to render a final verdict in order for a legal system to operate. One of Marsilius's more interesting examples went something (somewhat? - JZ) like this: Suppose two "competing governments" (to use the misleading terminology of Ayn Rand) claim jurisdiction over the same territory, and suppose both have the right to issue compulsory subpoenas that require a person to appear in court on a given day. Furthermore, suppose I receive subpoenas from both agencies demanding that I appear in court at exactly the same time. Since it is impossible for me to be in two places at once, it is impossible for me to obey both governments simultaneously. Yet this conflicts with our initial premise -- that both agencies have a rightful authority to issue subpoenas - because I am logically required to disobey at least one of these governments. - (If they are truly competing, then they would not claim domination over an exclusive territory but would compete, just like truly free enterprise businesses are, over a whole country, continent or even the world, not tying their business to any particular territory, apart from their own and relatively small real estate. - JZ, 2.9.11.) - I don't know the official Objectivist position on subpoenas, but the logic of the foregoing argument can easily accommodate other examples. The important point here is the reasoning behind this "logic of sovereignty argument," as it is sometimes called. This argument exerted considerable influence after 1576, when Jean Bodin used it to defend absolute monarchy. It was also used for the same purpose in the seventeenth century by Sir Robert Filmer (Locke's dead adversary) and Thomas Hobbes. It is scarcely accidental that the logic of sovereignty argument was a favorite among the defenders of absolutism, and was vigorously opposed by John Locke and other champions of limited government. For consider: If the sovereign (whether one man or group of men) is the final arbiter in all matters pertaining to justice, then how can the sovereign himself be held accountable for committing acts of injustice? The absolutists insisted that he cannot be so judged by any human authority; the sovereign was accountable to "none but God." Sovereign power, in this view, must be absolute (i.e., unconditional), because by definition there is no higher authority than the sovereign himself. The sovereign is therefore above the law, not under it, which means that there can exist no rights of resistance and revolution by the people. To advocate a "divided sovereignty," according to Filmer, Hobbes and other absolutists, is to advocate anarchy. - I cannot go into the various ways that Locke and other minarchists tried to get around this logic of sovereignty argument, but I think the absolutists had the stronger philosophical case. Either a government has sovereign power, or it doesn't. Either a government has the final authority to render and execute legal decisions, or it doesn't. Sovereignty is an all-or-nothing affair. (For the individual, not for a compulsory territorial collective and its government. – J.Z., 20.7.12.) And if this is true, then no person has a right to resist the sovereign, however unjust his actions may appear. For who is to decide whether a law is unjust, if not the sovereign himself? Who is to decide whether a right has been violated, if not a sovereign government in its role as final arbiter? - In any dispute between a sovereign government and its subjects, the government itself must decide who is right; and, as Locke suggested, the sovereign, like everyone else, is likely to be biased in his own favor. I would therefore like to know how those Objectivists who use the logic of sovereignty argument as a weapon against anarchism can avoid sliding down the slippery slope into absolutism. - If I am arrested for smoking pot or for reading a prohibited book (say, ATLAS SHRUGGED) do I have a right forcibly to resist my incarceration? If you say "no," then you are defending absolutism. If you say "yes," then what happened to the sovereign power of government to render final decisions in matters of law? - for in resisting the government I am clearly acting as judge in my own case. - Ayn Rand somewhere says that a government becomes tyrannical when it attempts to suppress freedom of speech and press, but who is to decide when this line has been crossed, if not the sovereign government? Surely we can't have crazy people like Ayn Rand running around condemning some laws as unjust and calling for disobedience, because this will lead to anarchy. We cannot preach sovereignty when it suits our purpose, and then oppose it when we don't like particular laws, for this undermines the rationale of sovereignty itself - i.e., that legal matters cannot be left to the discretion of individuals. The doctrine of natural rights, as foes of consent theory repeatedly pointed out, is inherently anarchistic. - (Burke called natural rights "a digest of anarchy," while Bentham castigated them as "anarchical fallacies.") (I like that formula for my SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY files. - JZ) - If at any point Objectivists are willing to admit that individuals have the right to resist an unjust law or overthrow a despotic government, then they are conceding the basic premise of anarchism: namely, that true sovereignty resides in each individual, who has the right to assess the justice of a particular law, procedure or government. - There can be no (logically consistent) middle ground between state-sovereignty and self-sovereignty, between absolutism and anarchism. (Exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, whether by any kind of anarchists, libertarians or statists, to provide that middle ground. – J.Z., 20.7.12.) I defend the self-sovereignty of anarchism. (Anarchism itself, in all its varieties, is not sovereign, it is not a person with rights and liberties, just like the State, it is an idea, a word, a generalization. – J.Z., 202.7.12.) If Objectivists do not understand how I can defend the individual as the "final authority in ethics," I recommend they read Ayn Rand's essay on that topic. - In over twenty-five years of arguing with Randian minarchists, I have encountered few who seem even remotely aware that the logic of sovereignty argument has been a central theme in political theory for over four centuries. Those familiar with its long history will understand that it has everywhere and always been used to defend and expand the absolute power of government. - (I believe it is high time to bring all traces of this important discussion finally together, with cross references. It is not good enough to have it spread over xyz books and articles, most of them out of print and inaccessible. - JZ) - In THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, for example, both Madison and Hamilton repeatedly use the logic of sovereignty argument to defend extensive discretionary powers in the federal government, and to prove that no limit can logically be imposed on the taxing power of Congress. Indeed, Hamilton insists that an "unqualified" (i.e., absolute) power to tax is logically deducible from the axiom of sovereignty, and Madison defends a similar position. - As the saying goes, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. The minarchists who lie down with the logic of sovereignty argument are infested with the fleas of absolutism, but apparently they haven't noticed or don't care. - The lesson here is that power is always dangerous, regardless of who wields it - be it a private protection agency or a sovereign government. - (It makes a great deal of difference whether an agency is voluntary and exterritorially autonomous or whether it is territorial and has thus a compulsory membership. See my long discussion of  Butler D. Shaffer's main book on this. - The same difference exists as between competitive free-market corporations or cooperatives and corporations with legal monopolies, like governments and governmental authorities. - JZ) As Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - (Although unanimous consent as in voluntary communities, can provide extra degrees of "power", it is not the kind of monopolistic, coercive and absolutistic power that is so highly objectionable. At the most, among ignorant, stupid and prejudiced people it goes to the abuses that some sectarians commit. - JZ) - Even the rulers in an ideal Objectivist society would be likely to abuse their power, and would therefore require constant monitoring. (I ask you, who is more likely to seek power in an Objectivist society - the Howard Roarks or the Ellsworth Tooheys?) It was this concern about the abuse of power that led Thomas Jefferson and others in his tradition to favor decentralization, a system in which power is checked by other external powers. This was the original idea behind "limited government." A "limited government" was a government whose power was limited, or checked, by another power EXTERNAL to itself. Ultimately, according to Locke, Jefferson, and other minarchists, the only effective check on sovereign power is the right of the people to resist unjust laws and overthrow despotic governments. This sovereign right of the people was the external check that imposed real limits on a "limited government." - (There are very good reasons to suppose that legal pluralism would be more effective in preserving justice than legal monism.) - (Again, I very much like this formula for my ON PANARCHY and my SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY collection. - JZ) - The Western legal tradition, as many historians have pointed out, was rooted in legal pluralism. Legal pluralism existed in Europe for many centuries, until it was finally destroyed by rapacious and violent monarchs. Medieval Europe had a complex network of political authorities, legal systems and overlapping jurisdictions. There existed customary law, the king's law, feudal law, municipal law, canon law, and so forth. What some minarchists claim cannot exist, therefore, did in fact exist for many centuries. - Moreover, as Voltaire, Lord Acton and other liberal historians have argued, the Western World owes its liberty to the conflict among these competing authorities. Neither the spiritual nor the temporal authorities had libertarian intentions, but the ongoing competition between these institutions gradually led to the development of "intermediate" institutions (such as municipalities), as Pope and Prince conceded various "liberties" and "immunities" in an effort to win allies to their side. And it was these intermediate institutions, not governments, which were largely responsible for the freedom that is unique to the Western World. - (In spite of their numerous inherent flaws, there were also beneficial effects from other than mercantile or free city intermediate institutions: the military, the aristocracy and the clergy, as opposed to the territorial princes. - JZ) - A remarkable system of competing governments also existed in America for many decades prior to the War for Independence. The colonials came to regard their provincial governments as independent and autonomous institutions that were necessary to check British power. And the British government, in its turn, restrained the power of the colonial assemblies. This situation resulted in a paralysis of power (since neither government could do much) and in a great deal of personal liberty. - (And on the frontier the old as well as the new governmental organizations were widely ignored and replaced by self-help institutions. - JZ) - Later, after the countervailing power of Britain had been eliminated by a successful Revolution, the Constitution established a powerful national government -- which, as Madison proudly announced during the Philadelphia Convention, was vested with greater powers than even the British Parliament against which Americans "have so lately rebelled." - This sentiment was seconded in THE FEDERALIST PAPERS by Alexander Hamilton, who criticized the fundamental principles of the American Revolution, called for their repudiation by the American people, and advocated instead a Constitution and monopolistic government that were based on a newer and more sophisticated "science" of political sovereignty. - In just a few short years the decentralized legal pluralism of pre-Revolutionary America (which did not go far enough! - but the ancient militia tradition and that of posse comitatus helped. - JZ) had succumbed to the logic of sovereignty and a powerful central government -- those evil Siamese-twins that are largely responsible for our present unhappy condition. - (The militia or national guard were early on statized or nationalized. - JZ) - - - William Thomas on Government, By George H. Smith. (G. H. S. himself appended this part as part 4 of his essay! - JZ.) - According to Mr. Thomas, it is "absurd to criticize the existing governments for being 'coercive'," because "the purchase of legal services cannot occur in the context of the law… After all, what one is purchasing IS the law." Thus: "Any legal system, even a system of competing agencies, will arise through a process that will involve the exertion of coercive power. If your agency isn't prepared to be coercive toward people who violate their rights (*), then you'll need a new agency." - (*) Each is to be free to renounce the own rights - but not to restrict the self-concerned practices of rights and liberties of the members of other volunteer communities. The own and subjectively perceived rights and liberties can be rightly upheld primarily only against the voluntary members of the own community and secondarily, in case of unjust external aggressions, e.g., when outsider want to impose e.g. their laws on drugs, abortion or polygamy. - It still surprises me with how much ignorance, prejudices, lack of logic but plenty of errors and stupidity the powers, monopolies and wrongful coercive acts of territorial governments were and are defended, by people who, otherwise, appear to be intelligent and rational, and even have relatively high ethical standards. - JZ) - Given a government that is truly engaged in the business of protecting rights, that government would logically be compelled to prohibit any competitor within its sphere of jurisdiction. Why? Because any such competitor, in order to qualify as authentic competitor, must be peddling an alternative legal system; and the only alternative to a just legal system is a system that is unjust. And this is something that a just government could never tolerate. - What else could our ideal government do, asks Mr. Thomas, except coercively suppress its would-be competitor in the name of justice? After all, in stamping out this competitor, the ideal government is shielding its citizens from the invasive actions of a renegade agency, which was attempting to implement despotic measures under cover of law. The ideal government, therefore, is protecting the rights of its citizens, no less than if it had eliminated a roving gang of thieves and murderers. And thus does this government pass the Randian test of legitimacy. And thus does Mr. Thomas contend that every law-enforcement agency, even those in a free market, must necessarily seek to monopolize the use of legitimate force within its territory. - The pertinent question to ask Mr. Thomas about his ideal government is this: How has he determined that its legal system is in fact just? More specifically, has he employed OBJECTIVE or SUBJECTIVE criteria? - By "objective criteria," I mean principles of justice, such as individual rights, that are derived by reason and knowable to every rational person. By "subjective criteria," I mean the claim of the government in question that its rules and procedures are just. - (Compare the human rights draft in PEACE PLANS 4 on the rights of rational beings as distinct from human rights which even irrational beings have, i.e. not to be brutally treated or needlessly killed, i.e. very limited rights which we concede even to many animal. The minimum rationality required is knowledge of and appreciation of individual rights. Those who neither know nor appreciate these rights cannot fully claim them. - JZ) - If Mr. Thomas has used objective criteria to assess the justice of his ideal government, this means that the legal system of the competing agency can objectively be condemned as unjust. (Not regarding its internal affairs of its voluntary members! - JZ) - In this case, the right of the government to eliminate its competitor has nothing to do with the need for a monopolistic final arbiter, but rather is grounded in the right of every individual to resist (by violence if necessary) the unjust use of force. - (Only if the competing government is aggressive towards members of other governments, as e.g. a crime syndicate, a fanatic sect or intolerant ideologues might be. - JZ) - If, on the other hand, Mr. Thomas has used subjective criteria to assess the justice of his government – if, that is, the subjective claim of government itself constitutes sufficient warrant to eliminate competitors – then every government, past and present, no matter how brutal or despotic, is likewise warranted in stamping out alternative legal systems, regardless of how libertarian those systems may be. - Let's tinker with the initial assumptions in Mr. Thomas's argument and see where we end up. Suppose the government in question is not a reformed U.S. government, but the totalitarian regime of China. In our new case, Mr. A. Narch is a Chinese libertarian who attempts to set up a justice agency on the Chinese mainland, one that operates according to libertarian principles. - Of course, we know what the Chinese despots would actually do in this case, but the interesting question is what they SHOULD do, according to the moral perspective of Mr. Thomas. Should they smash the fledgling justice agency of Mr. A. Narch, in an effort to enforce their sovereignty? If Mr. Thomas says "yes," then he and I have profound disagreements that run far deeper than this debate topic. But I am reasonably certain that Mr. Thomas would side with Mr. A. Narch in this instance, rather that with the sovereign despots. But why? - Well, Mr. Thomas might claim that the Chinese government is illegitimate, since it is involved in the wholesale violation of human rights. (It has murdered 78 million of its own subjects, according to a statistic recently published on Facebook. – J.Z., 20.7.12.) And if this is true, then the bogus Chinese government cannot rightfully enforce a coercive monopoly in an effort to exclude a legal system that is truly just. If this (or any similar) argument is employed by Mr. Thomas, then the fundamental issue involved here is not the monopolistic power of government per se, but rather the JUSTICE OF THE LAWS that are enforced by that government. Moreover, in condemning the Chinese government as unjust, Mr. Thomas has conceded that we needn't accept the subjective (and self-serving) rationale of a particular government, but may instead assess the justice of that government by objective standards. - (They are subjectively just - even though objectively unjust - for all its voluntary members and unjust only for all its involuntary members. - JZ) - If Mr. Thomas is willing to concede these two points, then the anarchist has all the ammunition he needs to rebut the arguments of Mr. Thomas himself. These points are as follows: (1) Our primary concern should be with the justice (*) of a legal system – i.e., with WHAT laws are enforced, not with WHO enforces them. (2) This justice can be ascertained by OBJECTIVE standards of right. If the legal system of an agency (whether governmental or private) is truly just as evaluated by objective standards -- and if, by "competition," we mean any attempt forcibly to overturn this legal system, replacing it with an unjust system -- then our agency may forcibly resist and overthrow the outlaw agency, owing to its effort to violate individual rights. - (* Rather the voluntariness of a system. Even totalitarianism for totalitarians - as long as they can and want to put up with it - but not for anyone else! - JZ) - As I said, however, this right to suppress the outlaw agency has nothing to do with the alleged necessity for a final arbiter. Rather, it is simply an application of the right of every individual, whether by himself or in combination with others, to (*) resist and repel despotism, whatever the source of that despotism may be. The pertinent issue, therefore, is not whether we need a coercive monopoly to enforce justice; but whether we can determine the justice of legal system by objective methods, and whether, having objectively condemned a given system as unjust, we can then forcibly resist any individual or agency which seeks to impose (Imposition vs. voluntarism is the decisive point. Not whether it is unjust or just! - JZ) that system. This has everything to do with the individual right of self-defense, as manifested in the libertarian rights of resistance and revolution, and has nothing whatever to do with the supposed need for a final arbiter. - (* secede from and then, if it should still be necessary, to…. There is no right to resist or revolt in a community from which one may freely secede and which does not interfere with the secessionists doing their own things for and to themselves. - JZ) - If, to escape this interpretation, Mr. Thomas shifts from an objective to a subjective point of view – if, that is, he stresses not what is objectively just, but what a particular government subjectively CLAIMS to be just – then every government will necessarily exclude competitors in the name of justice. This, after all, is nothing more than the "logic of sovereignty argument" that governments have used since time immemorial. - But this subjective version of the sovereignty argument "proves" way too much for the minarchist, because it imparts moral legitimacy to every government, no matter how murderously tyrannical it may be. It would, for example, justify the crushing of Mr. A. Narch by the totalitarian regime in China, because that regime, like every government, lays claims to subjective legitimacy. - Objectivists, if they are to remain true to the theory of rights defended by Ayn Rand, must agree with anarchists that the moral legitimacy of a particular government depends, not on the subjective claims of that government, but on true measure of justice in its legal system, as evaluated by objective criteria. - (However unjust and absurd it may be for others, like e.g. Catholicism is for Protestants, it is right and useful for them, while they are in that mental State, i.e., have not yet mentally emancipated themselves from their customary institutions and thus have not seceded from them. - JZ) - If a legal system is objectively just, then its enforcement agency (whether governmental or private) may properly restrain the "competition" of an unjust legal system, whether implemented by a government or by a private agency. If, however, the competitor also works within the framework of a just legal system (perhaps differing from the other agency in optional matters of procedure), then that competitor may not be forcibly restrained from entering into contractual relationships with willing customers. - (As De Puydt pointed out in his Panarchy article, there is a right to be un-free and without certain rights - by one's own individual choice. But, like with voluntary slavery, as Rousseau pointed out, in his "The Social Contract", such restrictions can be unilaterally renounced by their formerly voluntary victims. - JZ) - I therefore ask the same questions of Mr. Thomas that I have asked of many minarchists, viz.: Do you believe that the justice of a legal system can be determined by reason and objective procedures, or do you believe that justice is ultimately subjective? If you believe justice to be objective, then why cannot individuals contract with any agency they choose, so long as that agency enforces objective principles of justice, as determined by your standards? If, on the other hand, you believe that justice is subjective, then why should we not regard the Chinese government and all similar regimes as legitimate, and uphold their right forcibly to resist the incursion of libertarian agencies into their sovereign territories? - (Because other Chinese should be free to make other subjective choices for themselves, whether merely democratic or limited government or anarchistic ones or even worse communistic choices than are presently authorized by the ruling communist regime. - JZ) - The logic of sovereignty argument is valid only within a subjective theory of justice, where a coercive arbiter must prevail in the absence of reason. In an objective theory of justice, however, what appears to minarchists eliminate unjust agencies – has in fact nothing to do with the supposed need for a final arbiter, but is instead the application of an individual's right of self-defense. - (Objective and subjective notions of justice offer a false bipolarity here. Even supposedly objective notions of justice are to a large extent subjective and subjective notions of justice, especially when tolerantly applied among volunteers, can come - but need not - as close to objective justice as fallible human beings can manage to come. Compare the religious strife between the supposedly only true religions - claimed by maybe 8,000 – or even 30,000 different churches and sects. Only under religious freedom or tolerance, even for atheists, can a genuine religion or ethics or morality develop. Otherwise we have only mutual imposition attempts, using more or less peaceful and monopolistic persuasion or even brute force. - To my knowledge the only major and orthodox religion, which now even threatens with death for individuals who secede from it, is Islam. Or at least one fanatic sect of it. Others satisfy themselves with the threat of hellfire for a future "life". - JZ) - Minarchists, after noting that an objective theory of justice can generate the right to exclude competing agencies in SOME cases (i.e., when the agency is unjust), erroneously conclude that this right flows from political sovereignty. But sovereignty demands the exclusion of competing agencies in ALL cases, even if the competitor is far more just than the sovereign itself. Sovereignty, based as it is on subjectivism, cannot logically discriminate between just and unjust legal systems, so it transforms the de facto power of an existing government into de jure sovereignty – operating, in effect, from the maxim of Alexander Pope, "Whatever is, is right." This is why the theory of sovereignty and its attendant absolutism have always denied the rights of resistance and revolution. - A system of objective justice, on the other hand, enables us to discriminate between the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force, thereby providing a rational method of assessing any person, agency or government, which claims to use legitimate violence. Furthermore, a system of objective justice defines and sanctions the use of defensive violence, which has traditionally been expressed in libertarian theory as the rights of resistance and revolution. - These rights, which stem from the individual right of self-defense, can justify the suppression of any agency or government that seeks to impose an unjust legal system (*). And though this suppression of "competition" may sometimes bear a superficial resemblance to the sovereign suppression of all competition (whether just or unjust), this should not mislead Objectivists and libertarians into supposing that these two actions – one by a sovereign government, the other by a private justice agency – are based on the same mode of justification. One (suppression by a sovereign government) is rooted in political subjectivism (or relativism), and has no relationship to the justice or injustice of the victimized agency. The other (suppression by a justice agency) is rooted in political objectivism, and is confined solely the suppression of unjust agencies and governments. The former power is justified by political sovereignty, a right that cannot be reduced to the rights of individuals. - (* The imposition of a just system upon members of a volunteer community, who do prefer an unjust system for themselves and their own affairs, e.g., a communist system, is also an act of injustice. - JZ) - The latter power is justified by the right of self-defense, a right that is possessed equally by every individual and can be delegated (or not) to a specialized agency. The former theory leads necessarily to absolutism and cannot be reconciled with consent. The latter theory generates agencies whose power is specifically limited by the consensual delegation of rights by individuals. As I have said before, we must ultimately choose between state-sovereignty and self-sovereignty (This is the first time I noticed this term. "Individual sovereignty" is a much more common term. - JZ), between absolutism and anarchy, between subjective decree and objective justice. There is no middle ground in logic. The chickens of the Law of the Excluded Middle have come home to roost. And they are fouling the minarchist nest. GHS - I downloaded the above 4 segments in November 00 but only now did I get around to read these notes. - They are of interest for anyone concerned with individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, competing governments or exterritorial autonomy and personal law. - Upon first reading I added some comments in brackets, today as well and I combined these 4 files. - Why keep as short files separate and require separate downloading? - JZ, 28.4.02 - SMITH, GEORGE H., LEGAL PLURALISM VS. LEGAL MONISM, SELF-SOVEREIGNTY VS. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF TERRITORIAL ABSOLUTISM, WHETHER ROYAL OR DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN. RATIONAL ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, MINARCHY, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARISM, POLYARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, SECESSIONISM, WILLIAM THOMAS ON GOVERNMENT. (This part was appended as part 4 to his essay. - JZ) - RATIONAL ANARCHISM: See: SMITH, GEORGE H., IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM - Should I be blamed or praised for doubling up, intentionally or accidentally, some of my entries here? I hold that important ideas cannot be mentioned too often, until they are already taken for granted. At least on discs there is almost unlimited space for them. - JZ, 21.10.11. – If I would have his email address, I would have sent him these notes today. – There are all too many search results for him online – and I found only an incomplete email address, probably because he gets too much email. - JZ, 20.7.12.

RATIONAL BEINGS: A rational agent is one who has the power to act in accordance with his idea of laws – that is, in accordance with principles.” - H. J. Paton, in the introduction to “The Moral Law”. - PERSONAL LAW, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

RATIONAL BEINGS: In less Kantian language, the rational being will insure that in pursuing his own ends (whatever they may be) he leaves every other rational being the freedom to pursue his own ends.” - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant: The Philosophy of Right, p.74.

RATIONALISM: libertarianism and rationalism are political correlates.” – Silvert, Man’s Power, VIII. - One could say the same for panarchism, but with the difference that panarchism includes tolerance also for those who are not quite rational and moral in all their ideals, that they try to realize among themselves, but rational enough to be tolerant about it, i.e. to respect the right of other volunteers to engage in other experiments, actions, systems and institutions. – JZ, 1.5.08.

RATIONALISTS: Rationalists are also a kind of Bible-bashers. While the believers in the Bible refer to it excessively and uncritically, the rationalists attack it excessively rather than largely ignore it as just another book. Only as long as both are tolerant are both of them tolerable. – JZ, 20.8.95, 10.5.08.

RAUSTIALA, K., The Evolution of Territoriality: International Relations & American Law", draft for Miles Kahler & Barbara Walter, eds, Globalization, Territoriality, and Conflict, October 2004. - RCBJ. - TERRITORIALISM

REACTIONARIES: like reverse gears in the machinery of evolution.” – W. R. Thompson, Outlaw, in ANALOG 10/90, p.156. – If they were confined to their own volunteers only, under full exterritorial autonomy and their own personal laws, then they could at least serve as deterrent examples to others. Like with all other ideologues, it is only wrongful and harmful to give them territorial power over people who do not agree with them. – JZ, 18.9.08. – DIS.

REACTIONARIES: You are reactionaries! – Libertarians are, indeed,reactionaries, who rationally and morally react against e.g. inflation, unemployment, oppression, taxation, conscription, bureaucracy, monopolies and the nuclear war threat, all brought about by territorial governments. They are aware that only freedom has the answer to economic, social and political problems and to the nuclear war threat. At the very least, we are not apathetic on any of these and many other questions. Only authoritarianism and governmentalism and territorialism and coercion are truly reactionary rather than progressive and liberating. – JZ, 2/75, 1.5.08. – LIBERTARIANISM, DIS.

READ, LEONARD E., DIVERSITY: "Let them do their countless things ... permit ... me to do my thing." - L. E. Read, THE FREEMAN, 3/74. - "It takes all kinds to make a world." - Common proverb. - TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM

READ, LEONARD E.: 40, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. – At least two of his formulas, which in various versions are spread through his books, are essentially panarchistic, although Read himself interpreted them only within his framework of “limited” territorial governments: 1.) “Anything that’s peaceful!” and “Release all creative energies”.  Nowhere did I see in his writings an awareness that for the full realization of these principles exterritorial autonomy is required for volunteer communities, even for those reformers, who are still on false and statist tracks. This is the fastest way for them to get rid of their remaining errors and prejudices, always at the own risk and expense only. The only sphere that I know of, where he favored panarchistic competition and individual choice is monetary freedom. But here, too, he spoke only in all too general terms and did not enquire into the details of monetary freedom, its peculiar technique, although they follow from free contract, free markets and publicity principles.  – JZ, 25.1.05.

READINESS TO ACCEPT FOUNDATION: When competing private currencies, in form of goods vouchers or service warrants, in distinct types and standardization and in convenient money denominations, can be freely offered and are offered by the providers of wanted or needed consumer goods or service, in short-term loans, especially for the payment of wages and salaries, to promote and assure the sale of this cover for these currencies, then they do represent nothing else than, on the one hand, the ready for sale goods and services. On the other hand, they would represent a debt for this short-term loan. Both of them would act as a demand pressure for this ship currency, which would tend to keep it at least locally at par with its nominal value, even in the total absence of any other kind of cover and redemption. They would also constitute a convenient and alternative exchange medium that has the potential to make up for any shortage of other and conventional exchange media to pay wages and salaries with. They would thus and indirectly, get into the hands of the consumers, having earned them as wages or salaries and enable them to pay the issuers for their goods and services. Then these exchange media would almost see to it that the goods and services thus offered do almost sell themselves and this rather soon. Moreover, such exchange media could also adopt a sound value standard (as opposed to the governmental paper one, almost continuously depreciated) and the issuers could, in principle and practice, price out all their goods and services in that sound value standard, provided it is also acceptable to the voluntary acceptors of that kind of “shop-foundation” money and that the laws and institutions of monetary despotism do not suppress that freedom option. In that case, that kind of competing currency could not only supply almost any shortage of exchange media but also any shortage of sound value standards. That freedom option is not impossible or impracticable but merely quite wrongfully outlawed. - Naturally, these short term loans by the shop associations to the employers will have to be repaid. They are paid, normally by the employers transferring to these issuers the claims they have against wholesalers for goods already produced and sold to wholesalers. The shops can then use these claims (formerly “real bills” or “sound commercial bills” as opposed to mere financial bills of exchange) for ordering from the wholesales the goods they need for restocking their shops. - The arrangement between the shop association and its associated service shops would have to be different. They would get, from the shop association, short term loans in the shop currency of the association and would be under the usual pressure of a debtor to earn enough of that kind of shop association money, through their shop's sales profits, to repay their loan to the shop association bank and to make a living. Naturally, if such a service shop were e.g. a barber shop, a medical practice, a financial, engineering or architecture consultancy, it could try to issue its own kinds of service vouchers for its expenses. But it will usually find it much easier to offer its services as part of the whole range of shops in a shopping centre. – Other private payment communities might use different systems. What e.g. public insurance companies could do was described in the third monetary freedom books by Ulrich von Beckerath, offered on Its money would have a contribution-foundation instead of a tax foundation. Its insurance premiums could be paid with it as well as its pay-outs to the insured. What railway companies or other transport companies might do was described by Dr. Walter Zander in a brochure offered on the same website. – It would be a kind of general ticket money for the railway with which the diverse tickets or other transport costs could be paid to it. Different methods - for different purposes, people and institutions! But all would have the “clearing principle”, the readiness-to accept foundation” and sound value standard reckoning in common – or should have. - JZ, 20.11.97, 28.9.08, 19.2.11. – Panarchies, like private competing money issues, do have also a “readiness to accept” foundation. They certainly do not have the territorial monopoly and legal tender power and an exclusive and imposed value standard. – JZ, 28.1.12.

READING: Ultimately, the ones who read the best writings will, mostly, make significantly better decisions on their own affairs, as soon as they are free to do so, than those of the people who don’t read them and think that they do not need to bother about them, because they have acquired territorial power based upon their own ignorance and prejudices, supported by the ignorance and prejudices of the majority of territorial voters. – Unfortunately, the best books in the social sciences are not even offered together, as cheaply as it could now be done on a single HD. – And not a single comprehensive freedom library exists as yet anywhere in the world. Electronically it could be cheaply multiplied a million-fold. Nor are people free to experiment with the knowledge that they gained out of such books or acquired through their own experience. Territorial laws, regulations and institutions prevent them from doing that. – JZ, 11.5.08. - BOOKS, INFORMATION, EDUCATION, ENLIGHTENMENT, VOTING, POWER, MAJORITY, PUBLIC OPINION, PREJUDICES, IGNORANCE, BOOKS, LEARNING, ENLIGHTENMENT, POLITICIANS, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, LIBERTARIAN ELECTRONIC LIBRARY

REALISM: Realpolitik does not produce any desirable utopia but merely the usual messes of territorial politics. – JZ, 9.7.92, 15.5.08. – TERRITORIALISM, POWER, STATISM

REALISM: Territorial “realists” do not realize how much of reality they are missing out on and must, inevitably, as long as they remain territorialists, unaware of their realistic, rightful and free alternatives. – JZ, 1.10.89, 15.5.08. – TERRITORIALISM

REALISM: The territorial, political, economic and social reality is so far from ideal and so extensively built upon errors, myths, prejudices and false assumptions, usurped powers and THEIR coercion that it is almost “unreal”, merely some ideological or religions, mythological or statist artificial construct, the mere enactment of fantasies, dreams and spleens. Thus we should not all too often refer to it as the “reality”, as something quite real, as representing a natural, moral, free and rational world. Like enforced wars and totalitarian regimes, even democracies and “peaceful” but meddlesome “societies”, it is mere playacting, or a mere directed, edited and biased movie-“life”. – Our lives are thus almost as distorted as the lives of primitives are by their ignorance and superstitions. – We should become individually free, as actors and players, directors and editors, writers and dreamers, to act only in self-chosen roles, plays, movies or sports etc., etc. or, in other words, quite realistically, live our own lives, without scripts and rules that are territorially imposed upon us by others, which leads, inevitably to endless dissatisfaction, conflicts and intolerance. – JZ, 9.10.76, 15.5.08. – The reality and the facts of territorialism can come to collapse quite suddenly, just like the Berlin Wall did, after it was suddenly simply ignored, even by those, who were supposed to keep it operating. Parts of it became mere souvenirs. – Better ideas, opinions and actions CAN come to crush or abolish the greatest powers, sometimes quite nonviolently. - J.Z., 20.7.12. - PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM & ITS MONOPOLY & COERCION, IDEAS, TOTALITARIANISM, LIBERATION, BERLIN WALL, BORDERS.

REALISM: When you come right down to it, nothing’s as good as you think it’s going to be.” – Robert Sheckley, Dimensions of Miracles, p.66. – And nothing is as bad as you think it is or is going to be – if only people, mainly and at first only the dissenting individuals and minorities, become quite free to do something about their present conditions, under full exterritorial autonomy and personal law. – JZ, 15.5.08, 19.2.11. – PESSIMISM, OPTIMISM, SELF-HELP, FUTURISM, REFORMS, FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, PANARCHISM, DIS., PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, LIBERATION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM IN EVERY SPHERE

REALISTIC OR UNREALISTIC? As for the objection that we are ‘unrealistic’, government itself is, in our view, the more unrealistic: it promises peace but delivers war. It institutionalizes robbery as its means of ‘protection’ against the criminals who might commit robbery. Its conscription enslaves us so as to force us to ‘defend’ ourselves against enslavement by foreign countries’ governments. Its police surveillance, its continually augmenting pile of laws to which no one can be safe from accidental disobedience or selective prosecution, show that in ‘protecting’ us, government actually invades farther than the alleged anti-freedom elements from which government ‘protects’ us. Government is an unrealistic, unworkable, utopian dream. It has been so demonstrated and proved countless times.” – Fred Woodworth, Anarchism, p.35. - GOVERNMENT, DIS., LIBERTARIANISM, UTOPIAS, IDEALISM, DIS., TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM, PROTECTION, SECURITY, STATISM

REALITY & THE IDEAL: I'm only speaking a melancholy truth. Reality doesn't always come up to the ideal, you know. But that doesn't make me believe any the less in the ideal." - Mr. Hutton, quoted by Sybille Bedford in Aldous Huxley, II, 122. - Is an ideal really an ideal when its reality does not and cannot come up to it? (Or at least closely approach it?) Moreover, one should certainly not be confined to a single experiment in the attempt to realize one's ideal. Nor should one depend, for this experiment, on the active participation of people who do not share this ideal but might rather try everything in their power to make the experiment fail. Nor should one have to rely on politicians, bureaucrats and policemen for the realization of one's ideal. Panarchists, on the other hand, would be quite free to try to realize their ideals - without permission from any outsider and supported only by like-minded people. Thus they would have a much better chance to rapidly approach their ideal, if it can be realized at all. - JZ 1.7.92. To speak of the realization of an ideal under far from ideal conditions, of experiments when experimental freedom is strictly limited, of practical failures when freedom of action is absent, does not make sense to me at all. - JZ 15.1.93, 10.12.03.

REALITY: Beliefs regarding facts are often stronger than reality and recorded proofs of facts in determining our attitudes and our actions. E.g. the various beliefs on taxation have mostly little relationship to its realities. The same applies to money, trade, immigration, war, peace, unemployment, inflation – practically almost all of the so-called “social sciences” and their subjects. We are still religious and prejudiced, faithful and superstitious animals rather than moral and rational ones. Our misled minds ignore many facts. Our education and training multiplies errors and wrong assumptions. E.g. on laissez faire and the industrial revolution. On the Welfare State and the Warfare State. We can even be motivated into fighting wars and civil wars against each other. All that is nothing to be proud of. It isn’t mind over matter, except somewhat in science and technology, but it is misinformed minds that matter and decide most in the present territorial political, social and economic systems, more or less imposed upon dissenters. We are still far from an enlightened and tolerant age, one of peace, justice, freedom. Fads, fashions, prejudices, myths, errors, control all too many of our actions not scientific arguments, proofs and observations. At least not until we finally develop “social sciences” that deserve the name. And suitable reference works that effectively counter the flood or errors and support all truths sufficiently. – JZ, 6.9.95, 9.5.08. - FACTS, DIS., MYTHS, PREJUDICES, PROPAGANDA, TRUTH, OPINIONS, BELIEFS, FAITH, RELIGION, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS, IDEAS ARCHIVE, LIBERTARIAN LIBRARY, LIBERTARIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA

REALITY: Reality is thermoplastic, not thermosetting, you know; I mean you can reprogram it much more than people realize.” – Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus I, p.114. – But there is also the “reality” in all too many minds of fixed and false ideas, unshakable by arguments and even by facts for all too long periods and sometimes for their whole lives. – If people had free individual choice in affairs now monopolized by governments and the free experiments of other people, with different ideas, would be undertaken all around them, they would also become mentally more flexible. But as it is, their popular errors and prejudices are often like being set in concrete and confirmed and enforced by territorial laws. We cannot, as yet, efficiently reprogram other people (I mean volunteers) or free their minds. But governments are pretty successful in instilling statism through their compulsory education system – However, we can work towards experimental freedom for all, in every sphere and tolerance for tolerant actions, however diverse. – That would offer something attractive to almost everybody. We certainly should no longer leave it to governments to define individual rights and liberties. - JZ, 1.5.08, 19.2.11.

REASON: All writers on the science of policy are agreed, and they agree with experience, that all governments must frequently infringe the rules of justice to support themselves; that truth must give way to dissimulation, honesty to convenience, and humanity to the reigning interest. The whole of this mystery of iniquity is called the reason of state. It is a reason which I own I cannot penetrate.” – Edmund Burke, quoted in Sprading, p.64. - REASONS OF STATE, SECURITY, GOVERNMENTS, RIGHTS, POLICY, POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM, POWER

REASON: Every one must act in accordance to the dictates of his own reason …” - Thomas Jefferson, quoted in Sprading, p.91. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

REASON: Free is, not he who acts upon his individual pleasure, but he who can wholeheartedly live in accordance with the precepts of reason.” – Benedict Spinoza. – Somebody else (G. B. S.?) said later: “Freedom is the opportunity to do under all circumstances that which is reasonable.” – Judging by these qualifications nobody is or was ever quite free. – And yet we largely go on ignoring that fact, which I find quite unreasonable. – JZ, n.d. & 15.5.08. - TERRITORIALISM

REASON: Human reason needs only to will more strongly than fate, and she is fate!” – Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain, 1924, 6.2, tr. H. T. Lowe Porter. – Not quite true, e.g. while individuals and minorities remain territorially suppressed by unreasonable people and thus cannot apply reason in their own affairs. – JZ, 15.5.08. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, OPTING OUT

REASON: In order to get fair treatment for ourselves we must, as a group, require it for others, also. Thus, reason, not feeling, produced a system called justice…” - A. E. van Vogt, The Anarchist Colossus, p.27. - Even the motivations of suicidal terrorists must be explored to find out whether any injustice has been committed towards them or those they do sympathize with. A just punishment for indiscriminately murderous terrorists can only be achieved once any prior real, not imagined, injustices have been ended and restitution has been achieved as far as possible. Territorialists never seriously explore to what extent their territorialism continuously produces terrorists and to what extent exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities could prevent it. - JZ, 22.1.02. - JUSTICE, EQUITY, FAIRNESS, RIGHTS, LIBERTY, TOLERANCE

REASON: Let us consider the reason of the case. For nothing is law that is not reason.” – Sir John Powell, Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Lord Raymond, 911. – Since there isn’t as much reason in the world as there are laws, at least not within the usurped affairs of territorial governments, most laws must be unreasonable. – JZ, 5.4.89. - By this standard most laws should never have been passed and should be repealed or ignored a.s.a.p. – JZ, 15.5.08. - However, volunteers, in their own affairs, should be free to submit also to their self-chosen personal law system, however unreasonable it is in the proper reasoning of critical outsiders. - JZ, 19.2.11.

REASON: Liberty belongs only to those who have the gift of reason.” – Leo XIII, Libertas Preaestantissimum, 1888. – Quoted in Seldes. - There is also the fools' liberty - to act foolishness in the own affairs, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. Statism for statists only! If anarchists and libertarians understood that, they could even ally themselves with tolerant statists against the intolerant territorial statists. Here one should consider that statism comes in uncounted diverse factions, that under territorialism are also largely suppressed. Thus we should aim to liberate even statists into their form of voluntary statism. - JZ, 19.2.11. - MAN, RATIONAL BEINGS, HUMAN RIGHTS, LIBERTY, EQUALITY, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM PANARCHISM

REASON: Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum.” – Nothing which is against reason is lawful. It is a sure maxim in law, for Reason is the life of Law.” – Overton, 1546, quoted in DANDELION, Fall/Winter 80, p.10. – How I wish that this were the case, as a rule. But to which percentage of all laws does this rule apply? Nevertheless, as dissenting individuals and minorities, we are not yet free to secede from the avalanches or wrongful laws and to establish our own alternative communities under personal laws preferred for ourselves, as free and reasonable or as un-free and unreasonable as we wish them to be, always at our own risk and expense only and without claiming any territorial monopoly. – JZ, 15.5.08. – PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW

REASON: Raison d’état is a polite name for an ugly thing – the divorce of politics from morals.” – G. P. Gooch – Territorial politics is, by its very nature, separated from morality. – It always lords it over many kinds of dissenters, not only criminals and aggressors, as it rightly could. – Government are much more concerned about their own security than about that of their subjects. - JZ, 3.5.08. - POWER POLITICS, REALPOLITIK, REASONS OF STATE, STATE SECURITY, MORALITY, FOR REASONS OF STATE, TERRITORIALISM

REASON: Reason and action are congeneric and homogenous, two aspects of the same phenomenon.” - Ludwig von Mises. - If this is true, then this is a rather rare phenomenon: True reasoning combined with quite reasonable and free actions. - JZ, 22.8.02. - Provided that reasonable people are free enough to act. Which they are not in spheres still monopolized by territorial governments. – JZ, 26.12.07. - Genuine and sufficient knowledge is not power but it can create sound influence. – However, the thinker and the activist are not always sufficiently combined in the same person. They, too, need largely division of labor between their talents and the exterritorial freedom and rights required for their fruitful cooperation. - JZ, 23.1.08. - & ACTION, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, LAWS, TERRITORIALISM

REASON: Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.” - Thomas Paine. - The machinery of territorial governments has little to do with reason and much with ignorance, prejudices, stupidity and wrong premises. All too often it enforces the obedience of reasonable beings to irrational commands of ignorant people. I have never heard about any territorial government that was quite reasonable in all its ideas, opinions and actions. Have you? - JZ, 23.8.02, 19.2.11. - & IGNORANCE, GOVERNMENT, DIS.

REASON: Reason in man is rather like God in the world.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, - Opusc. 11, 1 de Regno, 12. - As if God were a reasonable child, rather than a careless and willful one, often in a tantrum. - JZ, 27.11.02. – In the present world of man it is certainly not all-knowing and all-powerful. But those, who believe that they know a bit more than others do, should at least be free to act at their own expense and risk – as exterritorialy autonomous panarchistic volunteers and pioneers. We do not learn enough from the failures of territorial politicians. Both they and their victims rather look for scape-goats and supposed culprits or “conspiracies” than reasonably examine the real causes of failures. – JZ, 27.3.09, 20.7.12. - GOD

REASON: Reason in my philosophy is only a harmony among irrational impulses.” – George Santayana, Persons and Places: The Middle Span, 1945, p.4. - Not a harmony but a self-chosen restraint. – JZ, 15.5.08. – Did he rather mean freedom and tolerance for irrational impulses as long as they are engaged in only at the own expense and risk? - JZ, 22.10.08.

REASON: Reason is the mistress and queen of all things.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes. - If that were true, then its royal and territorial rule leaves much to be desired. - At least within territorial governments it has remained perpetually a pretender or aspirant only. The worst still tend to get to the top. Even the philosopher kings, like Marcus Aurelius and Friedrich II, had their major flaws. - JZ, 27.11.02.

REASON: Reason like science, grows by way of mutual criticism; the only possible way of planning its growth is to develop those institutions that safeguard ... the freedom of thought.” - Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies. – The same applies to morality or ethics and the knowledge of all individual human rights and liberties. Freedom of thought must not only exist in this sphere but also sufficient publicity and opinion exchanges. Not all powerful and cheap electronic media have so far been sufficiently used for that, from the humble floppy to external hard disks, for collections to large libraries of freedom books, ideas collections, bibliographies, abstracts and review collections on discs, or offered online. Never before could their writings be published so cheaply and comprehensively – and yet, the freedom lovers seem to lack love of freedom to tackle this job. – JZ, 26.12.07. – So far the supposedly “open societies” have not been open for secessionists or for immigrants. – JZ, 27.3.09, 20.5.12. - SCIENCE & CRITICISM

REASON: Reason, justice and fairness – never had they enough influence on Earth to guide the advisors of mankind.” – Edison, at 15. – Only in a JZ re-translation from the German version. – Or rights, and opportunities to be freely applied at least exterritorially, under personal laws, among those who are already at leas somewhat reasonable, just, fair and tolerant. - JZ, 19.2.11. - JUSTICE, FAIRNESS

REASON: Reasonable arguments can do much.” – Schiller, Iphigenie in Aulia, 1013. (“Vernuenftige Gruende koennen viel.”) – But only if not hopelessly outnumbered by unreasonable arguments, while one has not on hand authoritative references against all of them. Even if one has the time and opportunity to effectively answer a few of them, one will become overwhelmed by the number and variety of the rest. If consulted as an arbiter in every public meeting, the text from an electronic encyclopedia of this kind could be thrown up on a large screen. Thus fast, enlightenment of others and self-enlightenment would tend to occur and less people would carelessly utter popular errors and prejudices in public before having consulted such a reference work. After consulting it they would often have their views changed and thus omit their former objections. – Public oral and written discussions would be much more fruitful. – This correction process may have been the intention of the former large encyclopedias. But most of them failed woefully when it came to the “social sciences”, by supporting themselves rather than refuting popular errors, myths and prejudices in these spheres. - JZ, 15.5.08. – Moreover, so far the already somewhat reasonable minorities were not free to opt out and do their own things, exterritorially, under personal laws, thus providing light towers for all others. - JZ, 19.2.11. - PREJUDICES, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS

REASON: Rebel, n. A proponent of a new misrule who has failed to establish it.” – Ambrose Bierce. – Correct, mostly and by their very nature, for territorialist rebels. Not necessarily true for rebels aiming only at exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. Even if their system were objectively flawed, it would do them good to be able to practise it and it would also be instructive to outsiders. – JZ, 3.5.08. – REVOLUTIONS, DIS.

REASON: since man is endowed with reason and has social instincts, the State in all forms is an unnecessary evil.” – Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.71, on the view of the Greek Stoics. – But those, who behave unreasonably towards basic rights and liberties of others must become defensively ruled, controlled, restrained or governed and this more effectively than any territorial government has so far managed to achieve. – JZ, 30.3.95. - Alas, these Stoics, too, seemed to have suffered from their territorialist views and thus never managed or even tried to establish non-territorial societies that would have practically demonstrated their views. But at least, as Marshall states, “… the Stoics considered themselves citizens of the world.” – STOICS, STATES, TERRITORIALISM, COSMOPOLITANISM, MILITIA, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES. Compare: ARGUMENT MAPPING, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS

REASON: Somehow, they felt, reason would prevail.” – Ralph Bradford, THE FREEMAN, 11/75, p.648. – That is almost like a faith in a benevolent God or government. As if “reason” were an independent and very powerful entity, acting on its own and sparing us the trouble to act reasonably. Not “let reason prevail” but: “make sure, as far as you can, that reason prevails”. – Remove, as far as you can, all obstacles to its realization. Apply it yourself as much as you can and make all its resources as widely accessible as you can. – Do not put e.g. the availability of life saving medical knowledge or even war-preventing and liberation knowledge under copyrights restrictions. - JZ, 3.5.08, 19.2.11. - TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS

REASON: There are two modes of acquiring knowledge, namely by reasoning and experience. Reasoning draws a conclusion and makes us grant the conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, nor does it remove doubt so that the mind may rest on the intuition of truth, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience.” – Roger Bacon, Opus Majus. – Opportunities for reasoning are much easier to obtain than freedom to experiment to gather knowledge, especially in spheres monopolized by territorial governments. – JZ, 12.9.07. - EXPERIENCE & KNOWLEDGE, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM

REASON: There is nothing more profitable to man than to live by the guidance of reason.” – Baruch Spinoza, Ethics, 1674, pt. iv, prop.35. – Under territorialism it is certainly not always possible and profitable and often even very dangerous or impossible. E.g. for inmates of concentration camps. In some ways all territorial Stats are prisons. - JZ, 19.2.11. - PROFIT, CONDUCT OF LIFE, MAN, GUIDANCE, DIS.

REASON: Therefore, that state is the freest whose laws are founded on sound reason, so that every member of it may, if he will, be free; that is, live with full consent under the entire guidance of reason.” – Spinoza, p.415. – Territorial States are founded on power and prejudices, not reason. Has Spinoza’s utopia every existed anywhere? – Could it be territorially organized or at most only exterritorially, among a few and very reasonable volunteers? – JZ, 26.6.92, 15.5.08, 19.2.11.

REASON: Time makes more converts than reason.” – Thomas Paine: Common Sense. – Seldes, The Great Quotations. – One could say the same about panarchism. Free and successful actions, observed from close-by, convert more easily than do mere words. – JZ, 3.5.08. – PRACTICAL EXAMPLES TO BE SET INSTEAD OF MERE FURTHER PERSUASION EFFORTS.

REASON: Tis in vain to speak reason where ‘twill not be heard.” – Thomas Fuller, M.D., Gnomologia, 1731, 5088. - And cannot be freely applied, at least among some reasonable people under full exterritorial autonomy, preceded by individual secessions. - JZ, 19.2.11.

REASON: Use primarily reason and only secondarily arms to defend your rights. – JZ, 75. – At least sometimes an immediate forceful defence is the only real option left. – Reason also says that masses of conscripts and forced laborers are certainly not the real enemy. – Reason also demands that all the rightful steps be taken to prevent wars. – One of them is the abolition of the territorial State system. JZ, 1.5.08. - DEFENCE, ARMS, WEAPONS, GUNS, SELF-DEFENCE, NEGOTIATIONS, NON-VIOLENCE, DECISION-MAKING, DIS., MILITIA

REASON: When “people don’t act in a reasonable manner” then this means, all too often, only that the territorial governments would not allow them to do so. – The attractive example by a few, quite free to do so, would tend to spread by voluntary adoption. – JZ, 9/72, 31.7.78, 15.5.08, 20.7.12. - PANARCHISM

REASON: Who was it, who used to say "we're fighting for the survival of Reasonable Man"? - Steed-Asprey? - Le Carré, The Honourable Schoolboy, p.334. – If they were quite reasonable then they would have won – long ago. Alas, the reasonable man knows his limitations. Only the ignorant and prejudiced seeks to gain power. And the reasonable people were not yet reasonable enough to strive for and attain exterritorial autonomy for themselves, by which they would be free to set inspiring examples for others. – JZ, 27.3.09. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, REASONABLE MAN

REASONS OF STATE: If 50,000 men were to perish for the welfare of the state, I would mourn them, but reasons of state must come before everything else. – Napoleon I, to Gaspard Gourgaud at St. Helena, Feb. 8, 1816. – What States are worth such sacrifices? Was Napoleon’s? He sacrificed not only 50 000 but around 2 to 3 million people to his ambition and his rule. Was France ruled better or worse after his overthrow? Mostly this phrase is only used for official crimes on a massive scale. Are any territorial States with involuntary members and subjects worth such sacrifices? Are any territorial States really worth any sacrifices? Are they morally and rationally justifiable? Where should one draw the line? 50,000, 500 000, 5 million, 500 million or all of mankind being risked for the survival of one or the other territorial government, a bit longer, in the safest bunkers? - The rulers take themselves very serious – but should we? - Should all of us be merely sacrificial pawns for their addiction to power? – Terrorists adopt the same kind of attitude for their “ideals”. – Why should we respect and obey terrorists in government offices? – Some historians assert that Napoleon was intentionally and slowly poisoned to death while in captivity. If so, then this tyrannicide came many years too late, considering the number of his victims. – 6.2.85, JZ, 5.7.86, 14.5.08. – DIS., STATISM, GOVERNMENTS ORGANIZING HUMAN SACRIFICES, STATE SECURITY, RULERS, TERRITORIALISM, STATES, GOVERNMENT, TYRANNICIDE, Q.

REASONS OF STATE: The “logic” of irrationality, immorality and power madness! – JZ, 3/94, 11.5.08. – They do, quite wrongly, assume that territorial States do have a right to exist and that these rights are even so superior that many individuals and even millions of the own subjects and of the subjects of other territorial States may be sacrificed to preserve them. – The immorality involved is no less that that involved in former human sacrifices offered by various priesthoods. – Territorial statism is a religion and a very intolerant one, too. - JZ, 11.5.08, 2.4.09. – The State, not being a rational and ethical entity, CANNOT even HAVE any REASON.  Only territorialists rationalize such “reasons” for its existence, which exist only in their own minds. – JZ, 28.1.12. - SECURITY, HUMAN SACRIFICES, INTERNAL SECURITY, WARFARE STATES, TOTALITARIANISM, DESPOTISM

REASONS OF STATE: The euphonious has from time immemorial masked tyranny, exploitation and the determination of every ruler to prolong and perpetuate his rule.” – Emma Goldman, “There Is No Communism In Russia” (*), in Alix Kates Shulman, ed. of Red Emma Speaks, p.408. – (*) Alas, there was, rather, too much of it, of the statist and territorialist and even totalitarian kind, not of the tolerant kind, among volunteers only, as in monasteries, nunneries and many intentional or utopian communities, or, most simply, in nuclear family communism. – JZ, 27.3.09, 20.7.12. - DIS., STATE, STATE SECURITY, TYRANNY, TERRITORIALISM, COMMUNISM, EXPLOITATION

REBELLION: A little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826. – How many are unnecessarily killed and how much is unnecessarily destroyed in most rebellions, mutinies, revolutions, insurrections, “liberation” and “resistance” actions of all kinds, all thus abusing the terms freedom, rights and liberties. A program for quite rightful and rational revolutions may still have to be developed. I think that Ulrich von Beckerath was and that I am, with him, on the right track towards such a program. See my two libertarian peace books on this, at . But it needs to become improved towards close to perfection by many others. – J.Z, 28.2.11. – Peaceful individual and minority group secessionism, once it is generally introduced, together with personal law and exterritorial autonomy for communities and societies of volunteers, would make rebellions etc. superfluous or, dissolve the mass actions into peaceful and easy one-man revolutions, spreading by other individuals adopting them individually for themselves as well. – JZ, 28.1.12. -  REVOLUTION, RESISTANCE, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, ONE-MAN “REVOLUTIONS”

REBELLION: Rebellion is a baser offence against society than injustice.” – W. A. Dunning, A History of Political Theories, Recent Times, p.116. – I would rather say that it is mostly a lesser offence than injustice and submitting to injustice. - What kind of rebellion? Against what kind of injustice? Against what kind of offence? Against what kind of society? - A rebellion merely against injustices inflicted and undertaken quite without committing further injustices, is not an offence but, rather, a right and a duty. – However, to achieve that kind of ideal rebellion it must not be a territorial one but an exterritorial one, a voluntaristic one, not one territorially imposed upon whole populations, contrary to the ideals of many other individuals and groups in that population. – A historian should make sufficient distinctions and not generalize all too much. - JZ, 8.8.92, 28.8.92, 12.5.08. – INJUSTICE, REVOLUTION

REBELLION: Rebellion, says Camus, ‘is the refusal to be treated as an object and to be reduced to simple historical terms. It is the affirmation of a nature common to all men, which eludes the world of power.’ It eludes the world of power – that is the point, for it is always power that crystallizes into a structure of injustice.” – Herbert Read, Anarchism and Order, p.17. – Territorial power is to be blamed, not the self-management power of exterritorial autonomy of communities of volunteers over their own affairs. – JZ, 3.65.08, 19.2.11. – SELF-OWNERSHIP, SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, SELF-DETERMINATION,

REBELLION: Rebellion, Spooner urges, was “No Treason”. Indeed, rebellion itself, or a government in crisis, was a sign of a dysfunctional if not a tyrannical regime; in either case, it was best ended and replaced with something better.” – Charles Chiveley, p.51, in Spooner, Works I. – REVOLUTION, RESISTANCE, PERSONAL LAW & PANARCHIES OF VOLUNTEERS VS. TERRITORIALISM

REBELS: It isn't the rebels who cause the troubles of the world, it's the troubles that cause the rebels.” - Carl Oglesby – The major man-made troubles are caused by territorialism. – JZ, 27.3.09. - & TROUBLES, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, DIS.

RECALL: Of course, I’d prefer anarchism. But given the situation we’re in, I’d offer two suggestions that could be implemented at once. First, I’d establish the machinery for the immediate popular recall of elected officials – as you recall an automobile that’s defective. If the President steers us into some outrageous war and then his brakes fail. I think we should be able to return him to the shop for repairs. And, second, I’d call for a new Constitutional Convention to decide exactly what kind of government to American people want, if any.” – Karl Hess, in PLAYBOY interview, 7/76. - At last here he wrote still in terms of a single and territorially defined “people” and saw only anarchism as an alternative to governments, instead of panarchistic choices for every individual. – A Constitutional Convention could now be cheaply convened online, with primary concerns directed to voluntary and exterritorial autonomy options for every individual and also towards an as complete declaration of genuine rights and liberties as could and should be assembled now. – One cannot expect such a declaration from those committed to territorially rule over whole populations. - JZ, 3.5.08. – Alas, the online constitutional convention that I came recently in contact with, seems to embrace every irrational spleen and deals, mainly with trivia, like fringes on flags! See: - JZ, 19.2.11. – Since all territorial politicians are inherently defective as representatives of the whole population, all would have to be recalled and not replaced at all. It seems much easier to introduce merely individual and groups secessionism and the exterritorial autonomy option for all kinds of dissenters among the secessionists. – J.Z., 20.7.12. - PANARCHISM: FREE CHOICE BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES FOR INDIVIDUALS, UNDER PERSONAL LAWS

RECIPROCITY IN PERSONAL LAW TREATIES OR CAPITULATIONS, CONSULAR JURISDICTION: Liu, ibid, page 39: What is most remarkable, perhaps, is the treaty of September 24, 1631, between Louis XIII, Emperor of France, and Molei Elqualid, Emperor of Morocco, which contains terms of absolute reciprocity, so far as extraterritorial jurisdiction was concerned.1 The most interesting provision of this document is article 9, which stipulates that the ambassador of the Emperor of Morocco in France and the ambassador or consul of France in Morocco should determine all disputes respectively between Moroccans in France and Frenchmen in Morocco. 2 In cases between Frenchmen and Moors, the local authorities on either side were alone competent, 3 and to make mutual intervention in territorial jurisdiction impossible, article 12 contains the admonition that all judgments and sentences given by the local authorities should be "validly executed" without interference on the part of the other contracting party." 4 - Here, then, is a treaty of perfect equality and reciprocity between a Christian and a Mohammedan Power, hearing a strikingly modern date, which assures to the parties thereto reciprocal extraterritorial jurisdiction of a limited sort. The arrangement is all the more significant when it is remembered that France, of all the continental European Powers, was the first in which national sovereignty was most completely established and a systematic jurisprudence most fully developed.5 - [1 Dumout, op. cit., vol. vi, pt. i, p. 20. - - 2 ''That if any difference should arise between the Moorish merchants who are in France, the Ambassador of the Emperor of Morocco residing in France shall terminate them, and the same shall he done by the Ambassador or Consul of France in Africa." - - 3 Art. 10. - - 4 That all the judgments and sentences given by the Judges and Officers of the Emperor of Morocco [in disputes] between the subjects of His Christian Majesty and the subjects of the said Emperor, shall be validly executed, without any complaint to the Kingdom of France, and the same shall be practised between the subjects of Morocco and the Frenchmen in France." - - 5  Moore, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 762.]- - - LIU, ibid, page 40: It is noteworthy that in the treaty of January 23, 1721, between Great Britain and Morocco, a measure of extraterritorial jurisdiction was granted, to the Moors in England.2 This privilege was repeatedly renewed and confirmed by later treaties.]-3. - In the treaty of 1740 between the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, there is a reciprocal provision regarding the adjudication of cases arising between Sicilians in Turkey and between Turks in Sicily. According to article 5, these cases should be disposed of by their respective consuls according to their own laws and customs. 4 - - -[3 Art. 4, treaty of May 10, 1729; art. 4, Feb. 1, 1751; art. 9, July 28, 1760; art. 8. April 8, 1791; and art. 8, June 14, 1801.   Ibid., pp. 431, 435, 439, 447, 457. - - 4 - Noradounghian, Recueil d'actes internationaux de l'empire ottoman (Paris, 1897-1903), vol. i, p. 272. [ LIU, ibid, page 41: 321 - -  IN EUROPE - - 41] - - The treaty of 1787 between France and Russia stipulated that the consul of one or the other party might decide disputes between, his nationals when they submitted to his jurisdiction by mutual consent.1 - - Still more interesting is the treaty of 1788 between France and the United States, article 12 of which provides: All differences and suits between the subjects of the Most Christian King in the United States, or between the citizens of the United States within the dominions of the Most Christian King . . . shall be determined by the respective Consuls and Vice-Consuls, either by a reference to arbitrators, or by a summary judgment, and without costs. No officer of the country, civil or military, shall interfere therein, or take any part whatever in the matter; and the appeals from the said consular sentences shall be carried before the tribunals of France or of the United States, to whom it may appertain to take cognizance thereof. 2 - - In 1825, Sardinia and Morocco mutually engaged to permit consular intervention in cases which involved the subjects of either country in the other. The pertinent provision is quoted below: XXII. If, in the States of Morocco, disturbances should arise between our subjects and subjects of Morocco, the difficulties shall be settled in equity and justice, for which purposes our subjects may present themselves before the Court, assisted by our Consul or other Consular official, or may be represented - - [1Art. 7, Martens, Recueil de traités (2nd ed., Gottingen, 1817-35), vol. iv, p. 109. - - 2 U.S. Treaties, Conventions, etc. (hereafter referred to as Malloy), Washington, 1910, vol. i. p. 495. In Villeneuve v. Barron, it was held that the consular jurisdiction of France did "not extend generally to all differences and suits between Frenchmen." Moore, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 84: The convention of 1788 was abrogated by Act of Congress, July 7, 1798, Malloy, vol. i, p. 490n. - - Ibid: [42 - EXTRATERRITORIALITY - 322] - - - by an attorney. Appeal from the decision, whether favorable or otherwise, may be made to the Emperor. - - On the other hand, should a question arise in our States, it shall be determined by the competent authority in the presence of the Consul of Morocco, or his agent or attorney, and if justice is not accorded, appeal shall be made to a Supreme Judge, to whom shall appertain the jurisdiction in such a case. 1 - - [1 State Papers, vol. xcviii, p. 979.]

RECIPROCITY OR MUTUALISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & ECONOMIC FREEDOM: Where commerce as well as social relations are established on principles of free exchange determined only by the felt sentiments and reactions of the human beings directly concerned, the most (I think that the "almost", in my copy, is a typo or a flaw. - JZ) reasonable choice open to each individual, who is party to any contract, is likely to be one that reflects the quality of reciprocity, that is, each individual, drawing upon his own personal feeling, is in a position to know what the other party to the contract is experiencing, and hence the possibility of a mutual settlement that will reconcile the individual interests of both parties is perfectly possible. (That knowledge may be imperfect but in the process of choice among various price and quality offers and, possibly, of haggling about them, the prices, qualities and conditions offered and asked for are pretty good indicators and substitutes for such a knowledge. Let supply and demand operate freely. - JZ) As Proudhon attempted to explain in the last of his writings, 'Reciprocity, in creation, is the principle of existence. In the social order, reciprocity is the principle of social reality, the formula of justice.' (Proudhon's Solution to the Social Problem, N.Y., 1927, p. 48.) Where economic activity takes place within the context of a social structure, where the forces of nature are sovereign, in other words, men will perforce recognize each other in terms of mutual accord, for they will be compelled, in the absence of the state and its highly centralized structure of legal order, to organize themselves within communities devised for agreed upon social ends. (Panarchies. - JZ) Without an established system of (territorial! - JZ) -  legal obligation to rely upon, every individual will be compelled to look inside himself for resources necessary to live in reciprocity with his neighbors. And since man is basically a social being, with unfathomed capacity for further development and growth, it is not unreasonable to expect that men will perfect a pattern of free social relationships that equate with the demands of individual liberty, providing that the right kind of economic machinery exists to make this possible. But what kind of economic means need we adopt that can guarantee reciprocity in exchange for gods and services?" - W. O. Reichert, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 144. - For their external or international economic relations, their economic means and machineries, will have to be based on individual economic rights, even while internally they might deny or restrict such rightful relations between their voluntary members, to the extent that they can and are willing to bear such restrictions. In other words, their international economic relations will have to be based on e.g. property rights, free trading rights, free enterprise, free banking, freedom in finance, in short, on free contracts in a free market. - JZ, 1.7.92.

RECOGNITION & NON-RECOGNITION: Spread right through the territorial States - and yet do not recognize them morally and intellectually and avoid supporting any of their wrongful acts, dogmas and institutions, as far as you can.  Do your own things, as far as is humanly possible, independently, in spite of the territorial States, in a way that, potentially, your own way could grow, by voluntary support, to its optimum size. - JZ, 15.1.92, 13.1.93.  See: ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS & PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS. - The growth of e.g. home schooling, in our times, is an inspiring example. Libertarian and anarchist self-education and self-publishing, using all available alternative, powerful and affordable as well as lasting publishing and reading media, could and should be another example. With them we could, for the first time, provide a comprehensive freedom library and information service, one that could cheaply sell free duplicates of any selection of wanted texts. Theoretically, our educational and ideas offers could come to outperform, quite obviously, all the output of statist schools and universities, at least concerning the solutions of the remaining social and international problems. We could offer e.g. rightful and better defence and liberation, full employment and anti-inflation, anti-crime and general prosperity programs than were and are offered by any territorial government. And we should be able and willing to market them much more effectively than the governments market their non-programs. Alas, our "think tanks" have so far not thought enough about e.g. alternative media, alternative exchange media, alternative value standards, alternative revolution-, defence- and liberation methods and alternative institutions to territorial States. They certainly haven't subscribed to my PEACE PLANS series and still do not offer their combined output cheaply and widely on one or a few CDs. Why not? Who should be blamed for that, if anybody? - JZ, 11.12.03. Why go on publishing only a fraction of all freedom titles in print on paper (out of sight in most bookshops and libraries) or dispersed on dozens to tens of thousands of websites only, instead of also offering all of them cheaply and permanently not only on microfilm but e.g. on CDs, which are already powerful enough to contain EACH up to 3000 books, not to speak of DVDs and the coming-up still more powerful CDs etc.? - JZ, 9.9.04. [By now quite affordable 3TBs discs. Maybe such large discs could not even be required, since the whole Library of Congress would need only 15 TBs according to one reference I read. – J.Z., 20.7.12.] Why are libertarians so slow in adopting such enormous freedom of expression, publishing, reading and information opportunities for themselves, for their favorite writings? - JZ, 20.9.04, 20.7.12.

RECOGNITION OF A TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT: the philosophy of pragmatism, or utilitarianism – the philosophy of recognizing any group of gangsters, any puppets, as head of a country as long as they were in control of its territory.” – Alexander Solzhenitsyn, THE NATIONAL TIMES, 3.5.76, p. 27/28. – Recognition for any territorial government means non-recognition for the rights and liberties of those victimized by it, be they some minorities or even the majority. – Recognition for a territorial government should never be de jure but always only de facto. – For all their peaceful dissenters societies and governments-in-exile should always be formed and recognized, as long as they confine their present activities and all their aims for their future to volunteers only. Only for them should de jure recognition be provided. - JZ, 3.5.08, 2.4.09, 20.7.12. – PRAGMATISM, UTILITARIANISM, POLITICS AS USUAL, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUALISM, DIPLOMACY, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, DISSENTERS, VICTIMS, TERRITORIALISM

RECOGNITION OF EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL VOLUNTEER COMMUNITIES: I for one do hereby formally recognize the right of ALL minorities and majorities consisting ONLY of VOLUNTEERS, to full exterritorial autonomy regarding their own internal affairs. - JZ, 12.2.88. - When will you add YOUR recognition to mine? - JZ, 9.9.04. – Q.

RECOGNITION OF EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS IN DIPLOMACY, IN THE UN & IN RIGHTFUL WAR-, PEACE-, LIBERATION- & REVOLUTIONARY AIMS: If their recognition cannot be achieved there then they should form their own international federation. It could soon become much more suitable to promote the liberation and protection of all minorities everywhere, then is the current United Nations, which does not really represent nations or peoples but, rather, merely territorial governments. - JZ, 20.9.04, 20.7.12. – UN, INTERNATIONAL LAW, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF & FOR PANARCHIES & POLYARCHIES.

RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENTS & PANARCHISM:  Only those governments can be rightfully recognized which grant individual secessionism and full exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities of dissenters. See: ZUBE, JOHN, Some Notes on Moral Recognition. - What does "recognition" mean and how and when, if at all, should a government, group or being be recognized - and by whom? Plan 247, pages 74 - 76, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507.

RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE: The U.S. has had diplomatic relations with Lithuanian representatives-in-exile for the past 50 years." - Lars-Erik Nelson, N.Y. DAILY NEWS, Washington Bureau Chief, in The Denver Post, 3 April 90. - Apparently, there was not even a formal government recognition of any Lithuanian government-in-exile. Not that this on its own would have done much good. In the sphere of recognition, it should have been backed by the recognition of exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities, in Lithuania, as well as in all the other Baltic countries, in Russia and in the rest of the world. In the sphere of actions these governments in exile should be recognized as rightful ones, because individually chosen governments, free to act for the rights of all the deserters and other refugees who would individually join them. They should be free to apply e.g. their own monetary and financial solutions or liberties to provide jobs and stable currencies for those who joined them. Thus they would become real and gradually better and better alternative governments, even compared with the government of the host country. Ultimately, the transfer of power over their volunteers in their home countries might become similarly peaceful and individualistic. At least, by not raising any new or old territorial monopoly claims, most confrontations and bloodshed could be greatly reduced, mostly to some resistance, relatively non-violent revolutions and military insurrections, tyrannicide and liberation efforts against the existing territorial i.e. monopolistic and despotic regimes. - Even those despotic governments, which are opposed by the governments in exile, and from which the members and subjects fled, should become recognized as rightful governments - but only for their own and remaining voluntary followers and only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy for them. - Thus they would not desperately resist. - JZ, 3.4.90, 5.8.92. 13.1.93, 20.9.04.

RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENTS: All governments ought only to be recognized to the extent that they do represent volunteers. No government ought to be recognized beyond its rule over its volunteers, as territorially “representing” all those peaceful dissenters, who would rather like to be free to opt out from under it and to establish their own government, society or community for themselves, under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy. Peaceful dissenters are all those who do not interfere with the basic and genuine individual rights and liberties of the people that they do disagree with and which these others do want respected. For all such rightful dissenters, not being granted their liberty, their self-government, their self-determination, only their own particular governments in exile are to be recognized, which aim at establishing that liberty for them by all rightful means. Those who suppress the rights and liberties of dissenters ought to be held responsible for their actions. But this should be done in most cases – tyrannicide actions excepted – only once they have been overthrown and then, perhaps, only by the juridical arrangements of a federation of all former governments in exile, each then in charge of all their volunteers in their homelands. To maximize the effectiveness of such governments-in-exile against despotic regimes, the democratic or republican governments – or peoples - who recognized them, should themselves be split up into governments and societies of volunteers only, thus demonstrating the rightfulness and effectiveness of that form of organization. One cannot proclaim as a rightful aim for a foreign country and its population what one does not know or dare to realize at home. This would also be an efficient defence measure. It would reduce animosities and dissolve targets for ABC mass murder devices. Once this liberty and right is widely realized, first in the more advanced countries, many of the remaining territorial despotisms will either collapse relatively soon or become overthrown by military uprisings or popular revolutions. Due to this rightful and peaceful aim and practice, there will hardly be any infighting among the resistance groups or revolutionary groups. Their tolerance for diversity will sufficiently unite them, much more so than the symbols, notions and errors of territorial or national unity could. – Only a single alternative government in exile would not be a sufficiently attractive and representative alternative. - JZ, 4.10.96, 9.5.08, 20.7.12.

RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENTS: I recognize all governments and governments-in-exile as personal law associations of voluntary members and no territorial government at all as representing any involuntary and non-aggressive "members" or subjects. - JZ 27.11.88, 20.9.04, 20.7.12.

RECOGNITION: China should be recognized.” - Mises Institute, Daily Article, 24 11 06, by L. H. Rockwell, Jr. – Recognizing the territorial government of China means not recognizing ca. 1 300 million Chinese people, in all their great varieties, i.e., all those, who would be forming xyz different communities of volunteers, if they were free to do so. At least in the long run and if sufficiently enlightened, they would prefer exterritorial autonomy among their own volunteers to territorial tyranny or territorial domination over dissenters. The recognition of other communities or powers was so far usually done only by territorial powers, which themselves are wrongful impositions upon whole populations. Thus it would mean, one wrongful regime recognizing another wrongful regime and top criminals shaking hands and making “agreements” and “treaties” with each other – at the expense and risk of their subjects and in the name of “the people”! What a fraudulent show or circus performance! – JZ, 26.12.07, 27.3.09, 2.4.09, 20.7.12. – RECOGNITION OF CHINA’S TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT VS. RECOGNITION OF ALL OF CHINA’S PEOPLES, IN ALL THEIR DIVERSITY, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES, TERRITORIALISM, SUMMIT CONFERENCES, DIPLOMACY, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE

RECOGNITION: Confine the recognition of each State, government, society and community only to those with voluntary followers only and aspiring only to exterritorial self-rule. - JZ, 4.9.98, 1.2.02. - RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENTS

RECOGNITION: I for one recognize all governments only as personal law associations of voluntary members and subjects and do not recognized any government as representing involuntary members and subjects that are not criminals with victims or other aggressors against that government or any of its voluntary subjects. – JZ, 17.11.88. - PANARCHISM

RECOGNITION: No territorial government is worth recognizing by all of the people subjected to it, i.e., it present and future victims. Nor should any foreign government be recognized that suppresses any individual rights or liberties. Each should be recognized only as exterritorially representing its own volunteers. No territorial monopoly should be granted or conceded to any of them nor any power over involuntary subjects – excepting only criminals and other aggressors, who had victimized any of their volunteers. –. - JZ, 27.9.98, 10.5.08, 2.4.09. - TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS

RECOGNITION: Non-recognition for any territorial military, tyrannical or other authoritarian dictatorial or even democratic regime and, at the same time, full recognition of all exterritorially autonomous communities, societies and governments of and for volunteers only, starting, perhaps best of all, with recognition for all governments in exile that are of that type. – JZ, 15.6.92, 12.5.08. PANARCHISM, TYRANNY, STATE, REBELLION

RECOGNITION: Recognize every government, privately, as an individual and publicly at every opportunity, as representing at least one faction quite legitimately, namely its voluntary members and voters. Recognize also every government to the extent that its actions uphold rather than infringe individual rights and liberties. But do not recognize any government pretending to have received a mandate to rule over any neutrals or dissenters (in any of the rightful, peaceful and self-concerned activities of these people), in any sphere.  They ought all to become fully autonomous, too, based on their individual sovereignty, rights and liberties, individual choices, contracts, self-concerned votes, consent or alternative individual choices. - JZ, 16.2.90, 10.1.93, 20.9.04.

RECOGNITION: Recognize the Chinese people – by not recognizing their oppressors and exploiters. – JZ, 1991/92. – The territorial regime should be recognized only for its remaining volunteers. – They should remain free to do their things to themselves. - JZ, 2.4.09. – Do no longer recognize ANY territorial government as rightful for all of the population of ANY territory. – JZ, 28.1.12.

RECOGNITION: The true liberalism is recognition.” - Goethe, “Sprueche in Prosa”, JZ tr. of: “Die wahre Liberalitaet ist Anerkennung.” – I would rather say: “is tolerance for tolerant actions even when one strongly disagrees with them.” – JZ, 15.9.08. - LIBERALISM, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM

RECOGNITION: There is something that is much more scarce, something finer far, something rarer than ability. It is the ability to recognize ability. – E. Hubbard, quoted in: Dr. Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Prescription, p.109. – Territorial governments do not even recognize their own disabilities and those of other territorial governments. They suffer from a severe superiority complex, amounting to a divinity complex. – JZ, 2.4.09. - RECOGNITION OF ABILITY, TALENTS, APPRECIATION OF TALENTS & ABILITY, GENIUS, IDEAS ARCHIVE & TALENT CENTRE

RECOGNITION: Whitlam, select friends for yourself but not for me!” – JZ, 27.2.73. – Regarding his foreign policy. Gough Whitlam was then a State socialist Australian Prime Minister. – He wanted us to continue with his rage when he was finally, belatedly, recalled. The following landslide victory of the other party sanctioned that recall by the Queen’s Governor General, Mr. Kerr. – However, he should have been allowed to continue his misrule – but over his remaining voluntary followers only! – Until they, finally, one by one, would have become enraged against him, too and would have left is panarchy. – Imagine him, finally alone, standing there and still shouting: “Maintain your rage!” – Consistent voluntarism would rapidly reveal how limited the “mandate” of most politicians actually is. - JZ, 2.4.09, 19.2.11. - FRIENDS, ENEMIES, FOREIGN POLICY, DECISION-MAKING, TERRITORIALISM, LEADERSHIP, PANARCHISM

RECONCILIATION & TOLERANCE: Tolerance optimizes the chances for reconciliation. - JZ

RECONCILIATION: It is much better to reconcile an enemy than to conquer him." – Source? - Tolerance optimizes the chances for reconciliation. - JZ, in pamphlet TOLERANCE. - ENEMIES, PEACE

RECONCILIATION: Reconciliation should not be the major aim. It is mostly just a dream or a fiction. Instead we should be sufficiently tolerant towards voluntary separatists, those, who do not make any territorial monopoly claims but simply want to run their own communities and societies quite independently, i.e. fully in accordance with their own reform ideas and preferences, customs, traditions and self-chosen personal laws. That would lead to several separate and diverse communities in the same country but also to some voluntarily integrated ones and would in no way exclude cooperation and free exchange between them and even federations of them. – J.Z, 12.7.86, 14.5.08. – Australia, originally, had ca. 250 tribalist and territorialist “nations”. – Its present mixed population might wish to divide itself into even more different communities of volunteers, none with a territorial monopoly claim. - JZ, 22.10.08. - PANARCHISM & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIAL MONOPOLIES, TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT ACTIONS, EVEN IN THE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SPHERES

RECOVERY: A complete and fast global or national recovery from a severe crisis caused by monetary and financial despotism is impossible while that despotism lasts, just like a man, who remains imprisoned and in chains, has not recovered his complete freedom. Nevertheless, most of the official and other experts have not yet considered the monetary freedom alternatives to their monetary despotism and the financial freedom alternatives to their financial despotism. A non-violent monetary and financial freedom revolution seems to be required. It might begin and spread from its success in a single small village. - But it will not succeed when it is suppressed, all too soon, while this can still be done or when its practitioners imagine that it would required a considerable investment of funds, apart from the investment of brain power and printing costs involved. As long as they still imagine that full employment and easy sales would cost rather than earn them money, in their own form of exchange media or clearing certificates or accounts, using their own value standards, they are still on the wrong track. – Imagine an association of all retailers, small ones to supermarkets, seriously considering, studying and preparing the issue of local shop currencies themselves, also the use of alternative and sound value standards, and this as a monetary basic human right and liberty and self-help option, when governments, as usual, do not know what to do about mass unemployment and inflation, deflation and stagflation, and if they were to practise these fundamental economic liberties and rights during a severe depression or inflation, quite suddenly, correctly and thus efficiently, with regard to their issue and reflux policy, contrary to all legal prohibitions and legalized monopolies. – Under stable value standards and freedom from exploitative taxes, capital would become fast available from internal and external sources. Turnover- or clearing credit for all wanted free exchanges would become readily available, sales, consumptions and employment would be boosted. They could thus end a crisis very fast, within days at most and thus no democratic government could risk prosecuting them for this action, if it wants to remain in the saddle. – This kind of successfully opting out from subjection - to ignorant and prejudiced territorial mismanagement - would lead to many other secessionist actions, leaving only voluntary victims to the former monopolistic and coercive territorial governments. – These remaining victims would mostly dribble away, too, once they become disillusioned as well and see the successes of free experiments among volunteers all around them. - JZ, 28.6.03. 23.10.07, 27.3.09, 2.4.09, 20.7.12. - GLOBAL RECOVERY, CRISES, MONETARY FREEDOM REVOLUTION VS. MONETARY DESPOTISM, FINANCIAL FREEDOM VS. FINANCIAL DESPOTISM, INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM IN EVERY SPHERE

RECOVERY: How could the world economically “recover” when it was never allowed to be economically quite sound in the first place, when there were always legalized meddlers at work, with or without the consent of their victims? Under individual and group secessionism and exterritorial autonomy and personal law for governance-, societal- and community systems for volunteers only, the catastrophic results of extreme monopolistic interventionism could become reduced to the remaining volunteers for this kind of statism, its monopolistic and coercive interventionism. All the other former victims of it would have seceded and be free to do their own things for or to themselves, exterritorially autonomous and under personal law - quite independently. Wrongs and irrationalities could then no longer be territorially enforced upon whole populations. – JZ, 12.1.85, 3.5.08. - WORLD ECONOMIC, DIS., Q., RECOVERY? CRISES, MONETARY & FINANCIAL DESPOTISM REPLACED BY MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM, TERRITORIALISM, BY EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, INTERVENTIONISM BY VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL & POLITICAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, LIBERATION, ONE MAN REVOLUTIONS


RED CHINA: Den Xiaoping's "one state, two systems" (SMH 5.6. 89) is not enough. It must come to "X Systems for X volunteer groups within the areas of Z former territorial and exclusive and coercive States." - JZ, 5.6.89, 4.7.89. – CHINA, PANARCHISM, PARALLEL ORGANIZATIONS, BIARCHY, TERRITORIALISM

RED CHINA: How do living standards and personal and political liberties compare in Red China and in Taiwan? Why does not the Red Chinese government try to become superior in this respect rather than militarily? How many more millions of people is it prepared to sacrifice to satisfy its wrongful territorial ambitions? It has already largely renounced its communist anti-economic ideology – but still hangs on to the political and military territorial power that it had used to impose communist ideas and practices upon the population of China for all too many decades. Its rule ought to become reduced to its remaining faithful in China and in the rest of the world. It should be free to try to set a shiny example with their unanimous support and without any involuntary victims and without any territorial monopoly claims. – That effort would or should be recognized as rightful by the whole world. -– China is “red” only on maps and according to the lies of its authoritarian and territorialist rulers. By now it may have the largest number of anti-communists and anti-State-Socialists of any country in the world, probably more than in Europe. But they do need a much better liberation and revolution program than most revolutionaries do have to offer them, one that is as far as possible non-violent and non-destructive for the Chinese people, too, have had more than enough of violent “revolutions”, which often made matters even worse, instead of almost instantly better, for all kinds of groups content with genuine self-government over their own affairs. – JZ, 24.2.00, 10.5.08, 28.1.12. - TERRITORIALISM, CHINA, COMMUNISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, REVOLUTION

RED CHINA: I call for the abdication or the overthrow of the territorial communist regime in China. It has murdered [78 million subjects, according to a recent Facebook hint setting a world record. – J.Z., 21.7.12.] and incarcerated and used as forced labor millions of innocent people and exploited and oppressed and terrorized the rest. It has enforced the abortion of many millions. It has prepared itself for a nuclear war. It may already have murdered more people than the Nazis and the Soviets did between them. And none of its mass murderers has been brought before a court of justice. All kinds of governments in exile should be recognized for Chinese people, all only for their volunteers and all without any territorial monopoly. That could lead to the collapse of this communist empire or its almost bloodless overthrow, as a regime imposed upon all the population in what it has so far claimed as its exclusive territory. It’s continuance should only be allowed for its remaining volunteers, those foolish enough to wish to remain its victims and as long as they do. – JZ, n.d. & 10.5.08, 21.7.12. - CHINA

RED CHINA: Instead of threatening the people of Taiwan with domination or extermination, the Red Chinese government should try to rule its present subjects rightfully and better than they do now and better than they are ruled in Taiwan. Better still, let every individual in Mainland China have only the government or society that he or she want for themselves, as long as none of them are granted any territorial monopoly. The same voluntaristic reorganization scheme could then be rightfully proposed and realized also for Taiwan and for the rest of the world. Chinese societies and governments, too, should not only be proposed for China and Taiwan, on a voluntary basis, but also for the rest of the world. Likewise, societies and communities of foreigners should be granted full exterritorial autonomy in Mainland China and in Taiwan. Nor should any kinds of mixed societies and communities of volunteers be outlawed. All kinds of Chinese should also be free to become exterritorially autonomous in all other countries. When no society, community or government is granted any territorial monopoly and all of them are subject to individual choices, none of them are to be feared any longer. No kind of territorial and coercive monopolism and imperialism is justified. – JZ, 24.2.00, 10.5.08, 19.2.11. – IMPERIALISM PANARCHISM, TAIWAN, CHINA, TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLISM

RED INDIANS: There are so many things about Indians and their ways that were simply not known. For example: no Indian who was not present at the signing of a treaty felt bound by it. For this reason many Indians would deliberately absent themselves on such occasions. - In most cases, when a chief signed a treaty, he was signing for himself. He had no authority to force other Indians to abide by it. This most white men never understood.” – Louis L’Amour, Education of a Wandering Man, p.113. - INDIVIDUALISM & TREATIES WITH RED INDIAN TRIBES, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

RED INDIANS: till the great day when the whites shall meet the red-skins in judgment, and justice shall be the law, and not power.” - Fenimore Cooper, The Pioneers, p.475, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 7th printing, 1966. – Justice would grant them exterritorial autonomy, among their volunteers, not only in the USA but all over the world. – Confining them to all too limited reservation lands – and not even granting them full autonomy there, is essentially as wrong as confining the populations of whole countries within their artificial borders and subjecting all of them to a territorial constitution, territorial laws and jurisdiction and other territorial government institutions, i.e. reducing them to inmates of country-wide prisons or territorial “reservations”. – JZ, 28.9.07. - & PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM

RED.: As was pointed out long ago, ‘It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it!’ that counts.” - Howard L. Myers, p.111 in ANALOG, 6/72. – Only when you follow this tip will, what you have to say, come to count with some or even many to most. Make them curious rather than angry. Elicit questions rather than provoke contradictions. Do not offend them but show that you are on a common quest with them for certain truths or facts, plans or ideas. Advocate your proposals only for volunteers and demand freedom to experiment even for all of your opponents. As a panarchist you can also turn your present enemies into future allies for the common aim of full experimental freedom for all, under personal law or exterritorial autonomy. - JZ, 28.2.09, 21.7.12. – PANARCHISM, ALLIES, SECRET ALLIES, ENEMIES, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE MOST PERSUASIVE WORDINGS

RED.: File and forget. We always have good reason for doing nothing.” - Le Carré, The Honourable Schoolboy, p.71. - Among the better excuses is that decision-making has been monopolized, that we have not yet achieved freedom of action or experimental freedom, are not free to secede as individuals or in minority groups, are not armed and trained for effective and rightful resistance and that individual rights and liberties are not yet optimally defined, published and upheld by ideal volunteer militia forces. In this case the private and the official mobsters are not easy to deal with. However, one should always keep one's mind open for freedom alternatives and the spread of knowledge of them, where and whenever one can. - By lack of interest in individual rights and liberties, we turn ourselves into second-class or even third class citizens. - JZ, 26.1.02, 27.3.09. - APATHY, INDIFFERENCE, LACK OF INTEREST

RED.: I disapprove of what you say but to the death I would defend your right to say it!” – A remark perhaps wrongly ascribed to Voltaire. – By now one should add: I would also uphold your right to act on your opinion – but only at your own risk and expense! – JZ, n.d. & 2.4.09. - TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, DIS.

RED.: I'm not saying you should change your philosophy. I am saying you haven't had a proper chance to learn tolerance - real tolerance …” - Poul Anderson, The Avatar, p.130. - TOLERANCE

RED.: in any culture complex, there is always an 'anti' faction to protest any movement or endeavor …” - Manly Banister, A Gift from Earth, GALAXY, No. 32, UK, p.69. - The experimental freedom, tolerance and competition under panarchism would greatly reduce protests or, rather, the protest would take a quite useful form, namely, a new experiment, panarchy or polyarchy set up and conducted at the expense and risk of the protestors. - JZ, 9.2.02. - ANTI-FACTION, PROTESTS, MARCHES, DEMONSTRATIONS, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM VS. TERRITORIALISM

RED.: it's some people's ill luck to always want the wrong thing.” - Keith Laumer, Forest in the Sky, IF SF, Feb. 67, p.76. - You might get your wish. That will be your punishment! Panarchism would allow you to punish yourself in this way. - JZ, 9.2.02. - Compare: "Beware of what you wish, for you might get it!" - by? - STATISM, WELFARE STATE, PROTECTIONISM

RED.: Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.” - Robert Heinlein. – When combined with ignorance and prejudices it often becomes predominant for all too long. – Dissenters must become quite free to secede and to do their own things. – JZ, 28.3.09. – PANARCHISM, STUPIDITY, IGNORANCE & PREJUDICES, OPTING OUT VS. TERRITORIALISM

RED.: Odd how the human mind, once it became conscious of the unyielding pressure of limits and traditions, refused to think constructively.” - Mark Clifton & Alex Apostolides, Hide! Hide! Witch! ASTOUNDING SF, Dec. 1953, p.12. – Replacement of territorialism by panarchism would in many ways extend experimental freedom and lead thus to much additional enlightenment and also much more tolerance for tolerant actions among volunteers. - THINKING CONSTRUCTIVELY, PRESSURES, RESTRICTIONS, STATISM, TRADITION, LAWS, CUSTOMS, PROHIBITIONS, ADAPTATION, GROVES, CHANNELS, MEMES

RED.: The endeavor to understand is the first and only basis of virtue.” - Baruch Spinoza. – Compare: “Try to understand! Really try!” – We do not have to understand other people in order to tolerate them – as long as they do their own things only among themselves. – How much experimentation and tolerance would occur in the sciences and technology if all outsiders would first to have to fully understand them? Usually even the experimenters lack full understanding. That is why they do experiment. – We should leave all to their own understanding and experiments, as long as they do not interfere with ours. - JZ, 28.3.09. – UNDERSTANDING, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

RED.: Time after time he had fallen into the Cartesian fallacy, mistaking clear reasoning for correct reasoning.” – Robert Heinlein, in collection of his stories called The Menace from Earth, p.86, story: The Year of the Jackpot. – That belief authorizes only experimental freedom and makes mutual tolerance obligatory. – JZ, 27.3.09. – TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, CARTESIAN FALLACY, I THINK, THEREFORE I AM CORRECT

RED.: You may disagree with me, but I shall agree with you.” – Victor Cofman. – Well, at least to the extent that I would be tolerant to your own exterritorially autonomous community of volunteers, all doing their things for or to themselves only. – JZ, 10.5.08. – Who is willing to contribute towards a digitized encyclopaedia of optimally persuasive and disarming remarks, including humorous ones, down-putting ones for insulting and aggressive loud-mouths etc., to be published, without copyrights restrictions on a disc or online, with authors or contributors mentioned, if that is desired? I hold that this is another one of the encyclopaedias require to achieve sufficient enlightenment a.s.a.p. – J.Z., 21.7.12. - TOLERANCE, DISAGREEMENTS, COMMUNICATION, PANARCHISM, DISARMING OR CALMING DOWN REMARKS

REDDIT: This just popped up this morning. Those who are familiar with Reddit might want to join. - - Dwight Johnson, 3.12.11.

REDUCING OR EVEN ABOLISHING THE NEED FOR PROLONGED FREEDOM STRUGGLES: After thousands of years of freedom struggles, more or less complete ones, and an almost overwhelming number of failures and after years to decades of personal freedom struggles, rarely crowned with significant successes, it is high time to ponder: Under what conditions could such struggles be reduced to a minimum or become as unnecessary as is e.g. any “struggle”, campaign or revolution for the job of filling one's shopping cart with the goods one does desire for oneself. Years to decades of struggling against particular abuses by territorial governments, parties, laws or juridical or bureaucratic decisions – they all did take their toll and have led to many resignations from the freedom struggle. Such prolonged efforts for the realization of any personal ideal should not be necessary at all. It isn’t, in many of our private action spheres, where we have been conditioned, by daily practice, to accept their degrees of exterritorial autonomy and voluntarism as self-evidently justified and practicable and can hardly any longer imagine anything else but the limited panarchism that is involved in them. It is already “in our flesh and blood” our daily habits, practices and exchanges, e.g. as the normal consumer sovereignty and voluntary associationism. However, we have granted all too large concessions to territorial States, permitting them to preempt large slices of our social lives by their territorial monopolies and non-solutions, imposed upon all via their territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdictions, regulations and administrations. This is the modern remnant of a still all too popular monarchic absolutism. We allow territorial States to force their systems, at best majority-approved, upon all their subjects, not only criminals, ignoring their contrary desires and choices, their individual rights and liberties. These territorial State prerogatives, or the remaining State and government absolutism and monopolism, camouflaged as "national sovereignty" and as supposedly required for "national security", have to be abolished. Then all solvable human problems will become manageable, fast, at least for the first few panarchists and later for all others prepared to adopt their solutions. What this amounts to may be compared with e.g. the free choice of doctors or experts or medicines by everyone for himself or herself. Panarchism would permit even one-man revolutions, i.e. as radical changes, by choice, for individuals. That they would lead to revolutionary changes only for one individual at a time or small groups of volunteers and these always only at their own risk and expense, would be one of their most moral, rational and endearing features. – JZ, 9.3.93, 12.1.99, 9.9.04, 21.7.12.

REDUCING PROBLEMS: Reducing problems can come close to abolishing them. That applies e.g. to reducing texts on microfilm or putting numerous texts, even whole special libraries on a single disk. It applies to inflation, unemployment, taxation, public debts, limited or mini-governments, crime, drug, alcohol and tobacco use – and overeating and under-exercising. Even war could become reduced to quite rightful police actions against the main war criminals only. On the other hand, putting megatons of explosive destructive power into a nuclear “weapon” - or mass murderous power into small quantities of highly toxic chemicals or biological microorganisms - can increase our problems, while territorialism is allowed to create and maintain such country-wide and even world-wide problems. The total abolition of a problem, if it were possible, would be desirable. However, reducing man-made problems to those people, who do volunteer to continue them among themselves, would also be a great step forward compared with imposing them constitutionally, legally, juridically and with police power upon the whole population of a territory, which also leads to threats with ABC mass murder devices. –  All “dueling” should become voluntary, limited in the choice of weapons and become extended to the ruling power addicts rather than to their involuntary victims. – No power-holder should any longer be authorized to force whole territorial populations to fight his or her battles against other ruling territorial power addicts or, rather, their involuntary victims. - JZ, 27.6.93, 11.5.08, 21.7.12. – LIMITED GOVERNMENT, OPTING OUT, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, WAR, CONSCRIPTION, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, WAR, PEACE, WEAPONS, DEFENCE, AGGRESSION

REDUCTION OF GOVERNMENT: Reduce government to the point where no creative activity – not one – comes under its control.” – Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 1/75. – Including all production and exchange activities. – JZ, 3.5.08. – This is best realized through individual and group secessionism, leading to the experimental freedom of panarchism, which allows, under full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, a great variety of communities, societies, anarchies, limited governments and even statist governments, however all only for their volunteers and none with a territorial monopoly. – JZ, 2.4.09, 21.7.12.

REED, FRED, A Matter Of Allegiance And Why One Might Wisely Withhold It. - I wish to propose a salubrious anarchy, a deliberate renunciation of fealty to country, society, and government, an assertion of independence from folly and moral decay. Permit me to offer a taxing political idea: When a society ceases to be worthy of support, it is reasonable to withdraw support. The time, I submit, has come. - - Here I do not mean to urge crime or counsel treason, but to suggest quiet renunciation of the national disaster. Ask yourself how much of American life pleases you. The schools are run by fools to manufacture fools, government grows more intrusive by the day, and culture is determined by the triple cloacae of New York, Hollywood, and Washington. Freedom withers, not only in the ominous encroachment of police powers, but in the loss of control over schools, church, hiring, daily life. We are no longer our own. The United States is not the country we are told it is, and not the country it was. - - How to escape? The beginning, and the most difficult, is a moral distancing. Those who care must disentangle themselves from the cobweb loyalties and factitious duties with which we have been unconsciously encumbered. From childhood we learn patriotism, that one must vote, that if our way is not perfect it is at least best, that we must support anything however bad because we were born in a particular place. Why? - - Let me suggest that one owes loyalty to one's family and friends, to common decency, and to nothing else. Render under Caesar what you must, keep what you can, and swear allegiance to nothing. Here I do not mean just the government, but the zeitgeist, the miasmic fetor [stench – JZ] of trashy culture, the desperate consumerism, the entire psychic odor of a society in decomposition. - - Begin with things so fundamental as seldom to be reflected upon. For example, do not imagine that you are under an obligation to marry, or to have children, or to raise them as the government requires. Procreate if you choose, but only if you genuinely want to procreate. It is not your job to perpetuate a civilization that is daily less deserving of perpetuation. - - But: never let the government have your children. Once they are had, your responsibility is to them. Teach them at home. Better yet, go abroad. Other countries do not force you to pay for an academically retrograde moral cesspool and then to drown your children in it. You might be astonished to know Argentina, for example. - - Ask not what you can do for your country, but what it can do for you - you ought to get some of your taxes back. - - Do not tie yourself to … anything. The price of freedom is poverty: freedom grows as your needs diminish. Less apothegmatically, if you believe that you need a vast house in a prestigious suburb, then you will need a lucrative job to pay for it. Having tied your psychic contentment to such an abode you will also believe that you need impressive cars and will therefore be tied to a retirement system and, bingo, the door of the trap falls. This, we are told, is the American Dream. I fear it has become so. - - I lived years ago in a second-hand house trailer in the woods. I do not know what it cost, or would cost today, but perhaps fifteen thousand dollars. It was perfectly comfortable, warm in winter, air-conditioned in summer. Mornings were blessedly quiet unless you regard birdsong as noise. A brick barbecue provided a place to produce ribs and drink bourbon and water. A couple of companionable dogs rounded out the ensemble. They had the run of the trailer, as was right. - - Now, living in a trailer is to the consumerist sensibility simply too degrading and so … I mean, my god, how could you face the neighbors? (There weren’t any.) But aside from damage to a servile dependent vanity, what is the drawback? A couple of hundred dollars buys a remarkably good stereo, music is free, libraries are good, and I for one am more comfortable in jeans and tee shirt than in Calvin and Klein trappings. - - When your expenses are few, your susceptibility to economic serfdom is small. You do not need to work miserably in a pointless job for a boss you would gleefully strangle. Yes, you need money. The first principle is never to work in a job that you cannot afford to quit. This means avoiding any job with a retirement, of which you will become a prisoner. The second principle is to work at something portable that you can do independently and, preferably, without capital. Retirement? Save. - - Dentistry pays well but requires pricey equipment, and it is not easy to build a clientele. An automotive mechanic is always in demand and the employer will usually provide the tools. Writing is a serviceable gig and can be done from anywhere. Many varieties of technicians readily find jobs. Remember that white-collar work, aside from tending strongly to entangle you, gets boring. Get a commercial-diving ticket, take a serious course in the repair of marine diesels, and spend your life in the Pacific. - - Here again the obstacles are fear, inertia, and vanity. If you come from a family on the suburban-death track, the thought of being a mere mechanic or dive-shop owner or what have you may be disturbing. "Don’t I need a college degree to hold my head up?" Look at the universities, at what they have become, and ask the question again. (Anyway, respectable in whose eyes? Your own are the only ones that count.) - - Finally, work the system. The government, if you let it, will take roughly half of your income, give much of it to useless bureaucrats, much to various forms of welfare, use much to bomb countries you may have no desire to bomb, and much to force upon you services, such as horrible schools, that you do not want. The central question regarding government is whether you can take more from it than it takes from you. It is much better to receive than to give. Live cheap, work only as much as you like, enjoy life, and keep your taxes down. - - You will still read of the rot and running sores of a declining culture, but it will bother you less. These things are your problem only to the extent that you feel yourself to be part of the society that produces them. Don’t fight the government, as it will win. Don’t try to reform society, because you can’t. Laugh at it. Live well. Read much. (05/30/05) - - Fred Reed has worked on the staff of the Army Times, The Washingtonian, Soldier of Fortune, Federal Computer Week, and The Washington Times, and has been published in Playboy, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Harper's, National Review, Signal, and Air & Space. He has served in the Marines, worked as a police writer, technology editor, military specialist, and as an authority on mercenary soldiers. - - Fred's new book, Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well or his previous book The Great Possum-Squashing and Beer Storm of 1962: Reflections on the Remains of My Country. See Fred's homepage, Fred On Everything. - The Autonomist (home) - Articles (by date) - Autonomist's Noteb'k - Personal Liberty - Philosophy - (Objectivism) - Forum - Store - Links - Permanent Articles - RETREATISM, DROPPING OUT, LIVING IN POVERTY BUT WELL ENOUGH, PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE

REED, FRED, Disengagement (2011) Disengagement [English]

REFERENDUM & PANARCHISM: See also: Direct Democracy.

REFERENDUM, DIRECT DEMOCRACY, PLEBISCITES:  The nation is a daily plebiscite." - Renan. - Even while referendum decisions within it and individual secession from it as well as free voting with one's own dollars is outlawed and numerous desirable private contracts are not permitted? Only exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities are daily subjected to the secession and join-up votes of individual members and to decisions of their clients and customers, who retain their sovereign consumer votes towards the goods and services offered by these communities and their members. Territorial nations are as far away from daily plebiscites as they can possibly be. - JZ 15.1.93. - Even "limited governments" do except too many decisions from sovereign individuals. Just compare the monster that the "limited" but still territorial government of the USA grew into. - JZ, 9.9.04. – DIS., Q., TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

REFERENDUM, MAJORITIES & DIRECT DEMOCRACY: Even a referendum does not authorize a majority to dominate the peaceful and self-concerned activities of minorities. Morally it only authorizes exterritorial autonomy for the members of that majority. - JZ, 7.4.91.

REFERENDUM: A referendum could rightfully and peacefully introduce e.g. individual secessionism, panarchism for minority groups, abolish legal tender laws and privileges for the central bank. It could even introduce full monetary freedom for those in favor of it. – In other words, it could be rightfully utilized or wrongfully confirm the present legal prohibitions in this sphere. - JZ, 3.5.08.

REFERENDUM: A referendum is not, by its very nature, tied to compulsory membership, territorial organization, the suppression of individual secession, the non-recognition of individual rights and the assumption that the majority is always right. It is just ONE of the many avenues that could lead to full self-determination via exterritorial and autonomous groups of volunteers. Within such groups a referendum would have a different value and meaning, morally and otherwise, than within territorial States. - JZ, 13.9.88, 3.4.89. – Another and later version: REFERENDUM: A referendum is not, by its very nature, tied to compulsory membership in or subordination to a territorial State, the suppression of individual rights and liberties and the assumption that the majority is always right. It is just one of the avenues towards genuine self-determination via some group action. It may also be used to split a population into two or more different communities of volunteers, with each voter voting only for the community that he or she prefers. – And who could rightly object if a referendum is only used within a community of volunteers, since the objectors would be free to secede from it? - JZ, 13.9.98.

REFERENDUM: A referendum regarding war, peace, armament, disarmament and international treaties would only be a step, one within the present territorial political setup, towards individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and the voluntarism and peaceful competition of panarchies – communities without any territorial monopoly and under their own personal laws. Our lives, liberties, rights and opportunities should no longer be the political footballs of a few power addicts. – JZ, 19.9.82, 3.5.08.

REFERENDUM: All kinds of referenda in favor of genuine individual rights and liberties – but none against them! Moreover, the result of a referendum “yes” vote can be quite rightfully applied only to these “yes” voters, whilst the “no” vote should continue to be valid for the non-voters. To that extent a territorial system might be rightfully separatist, splitting its population into two or more different societies, on all subjects which permit the different practices to peacefully coexist, which is, I believe, the vast majority of them. – One group might prefer, e.g. a country-wide governmental health insurance scheme for its members, while the other group might continue to prefer their diverse private health insurance contracts for themselves. But in this case a referendum would hardly be necessary. The governmental scheme should merely open up its subscription list or the territorial monopoly claim for it and any guaranty or subsidy for it, out of general tax funds, should be repealed. - JZ, 19.11.92, 12.5.08, 21.7.12.

REFERENDUM: California. There the electors have the right on issues that concern them sufficiently, to by-pass their politicians and have the particular matters decided by the people at large through referenda.” – GOOD GOVERNMENT, 6/78. – But this is still only territorial decision-making for whole population. It can be used for rightful as well as for wrongful purposes. All communities should be confined to volunteers. None should have a territorial monopoly. Then it would be up to each of them how they arrive at decisions regarding their own affairs. – JZ, 3.5.08.

REFERENDUM: Even a referendum does not authorize a majority to dominate the peaceful and self-concerned activities of any minority. It only authorizes autonomy for the members of a majority. – JZ, 7.4.91. - MAJORITIES, DIRECT DEMOCRACY

REFERENDUM: Every rational being has the right to initiate a referendum and to decide in it together with other members of the same community about proposed laws, constitutional questions, international treaties, armament and disarmament, war and peace. – Point 38 of the Human Rights draft in PEACE PLANS No. 4. – (Repeated in my first peace book, which is at , and also, together with over 130 such private drafts in PEACE PLANS 1589/90. - But the more we become reorganized in personal law communities that are exterritorialy autonomous, the less necessary will conventional voting and any referendum become. The main vote will then consist in individually joining or leaving such a community. - JZ, 3.5.08. - Full consumer sovereignty and free enterprise competition in every sphere, even for state socialists, if they can manage to compete – without legalized monopolies and compulsion! – J.Z., 21.7.12. - VOTING, VOLUNTARISM

REFERENDUM: In a genuine democracy the people should have more than merely the right to determine, every few years, who is to misrule and over-tax them for the next few years. – JZ, 3.12.83. To that extent direct decision-making is a step forward. But it still amounts to territorial and collectivist decision-making instead of individual decision-making. For individuals to sufficiently decide their own fate we need them to be free to establish, join and leave new kinds of communities that are all only exterritorially autonomous and have only voluntary members, or to have only contractual or market-like relationships with any community. – JZ, 3.5.08. – REPRESENTATION, DEMOCRACY, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, DIRECT DEMOCRACY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY, CONTRACTARIANISM, ASSOCIATIONISM

REFERENDUM: In any territorial referendum I favor only those, which uphold or increase the number of recognized genuine individual rights and liberties. Otherwise, I only favor referenda which the members of exterritorially autonomous voluntary societies and communities conduct on their internal affairs, provided that they do oblige themselves to respect all the individual rights and liberties which the members of other such voluntary organizations claim and practise among themselves. No independent foreign affairs policies for any territorial politician, playing God with the rights, liberties and lives of millions of human beings. – JZ, 28.4.93, 11.5.08.

REFERENDUM: In territorial States with compulsory membership or subordination for peaceful people, I would favor the referendum option only as a means to uphold individual rights and e.g. to restrict or abolish taxation, legally imposed monopolies and to reduce the power of States. Only in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers could referenda be used without restrictions, precisely because most of the members do already fundamentally agree with each other – and those, who no longer do agree, are free to secede. – JZ, 7.9.92, 12.5.08, 21.7.12.

REFERENDUM: Is it really undemocratic to let the people have the last say when politicians disagree, as they usually do? – JZ, 12.11.75. – However, the people outvoted in a referendum decision should be free to opt out of that community and establish a community of their own, as long as they do not claim any territorial monopoly. – JZ, 3.5.08.

REFERENDUM: It makes a great difference whether a referendum restores, extends or restricts individual rights and liberties. Think e.g. of a referendum repealing conscription, compulsory voting, legal tender laws, the money issue monopoly of the central bank, the laws against individuals or group secessions and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, and legalized prohibition of value preserving clauses. The right to vote or to participate in a referendum is not a basic human right or liberty but a rightful tactics or strategy and an educational means to achieve rightful higher values. – JZ, n.d. & 15.5.08, 21.7.12.

REFERENDUM: Referendum to vote for one’s own ball and chain.” – Graffito written during French student revolt, May 1968. - Since each has the right to make mistakes only at his own risk and expense, even a referendum should not be applied to all people in a territory, nor to any of the dissenters, except to aggressors against a country and its population or other criminals with involuntary victims. – JZ, 18.11.85, 15.5.08. - VOTING

REFERENDUM: Referendum, as usually perceived are “just numbers rackets”. – The last three words are by Patrick Brooks. – However, the results of a referendum that is not a territorial one, but conducted only within a community of volunteers, can be applied, quite rightfully, i.e. without any qualifications, to its voluntary members, i.e. to people free to opt out of this community. – JZ, 17.12.81, 21.7.12. – VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL FREE CHOICE, VOTING, SECESSIONISM

REFERENDUM: That the subject is not bound by acts when he is not represented is a sound maxim of the law, and not peculiar to the British Constitution, but a maxim of the ancient Roman law: “What concerns all shall be judged by all.” – John Adams, On Behalf of the People of Boston, Dec. 20, 1765. – As if these people had been a single entity. The usual flawed assumption of territorialists. - Correct only for communities of volunteers, and there it would be largely superfluous because of their extensive agreements and their option to secede. – JZ, 15.5.08. – VOTING, DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE, VOLUNTARY OR COMPULSORY, TERRITORIAL OR EXTERRITORIAL

REFERENDUM: The Referendum is the best education of the people in self-government.” – The Speaker and Debater, Teach Yourself Books, p.126. - Provided it is kept within its own sphere: In territorial States confined to uphold and extend individual rights and liberties and not to restrict them. In exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, it would be confined to like-minded volunteers. – JZ, 12/76, 4.5.08.

REFERENDUM: While laws passed in parliament should require at least an 80% majority for their passing, there should remain the possibility to throw them out again by a referendum in which 20 % of the voters are against it. When such a large minority disapproves of the law and is willing to break it then it is useless to pass such a law.” – Proposal by Robert Heinlein in “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.” – I would prefer to allow the dissenting 20 % to secede from this referendum decision or from the whole community, as long as it makes no claim to a territorial monopoly – and even when it does so, quite wrongfully. – JZ, 3.5.08, 21.7.12.

REFERENDUM: Why this impatience? Why the pressure to dispense with delegated authority and dip into the dubious pleasures of direct, plebiscitary democracy? … We have come to esteem ourselves so highly as individuals that we are unwilling to accept anyone as our delegate. … The impulse is to brush aside those intermediaries and take power back into our own hands. ...” – Syndicated columnist David Broder, quoted by Karl Hess in PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, 2/79. – Well, a referendum did, so far, not realize individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and individual decision-making, but it can be an obstacle to power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats. – As such it can be rightful and useful. - JZ, 3.5.08, 2.4.09. – DEMOCRACY, PLEBISCITES, DIRECT DEMOCRACY

REFORMATION & ABSOLUTE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM: The Reformation brought the notion of absolute individual freedom; the individual just needed to obey his conscience. The secular consequences of these developments, however, were oppressed by the power of the king and the emperor. Hence the state was assured of its existence; ..." - C. Bax, Kropotkin on law, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 167. - That development was partly due to the fact that the support of Protestant princes of the realm was required to overcome the Catholic Churches hierarchical and territorial powers. - JZ 15.1.93. - Territorial powers of princes, prime ministers and presidents are no less objectionable than territorial powers of popes. - JZ,  20.9.04. – CONSCIENCE, MORALITY, ETHICS, RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, TERRITORIALISM, PROTESTANTISM, STATISM

REFORMERS, EXTERRITORIAL: All those “reformers” who only consider the nation- or even world-wide realization of their pet reforms are, in spite of their often good intentions, among the worst enemies of mankind. In our times, given the chance to become territorial rulers, they have murdered even more people than were murdered in the wars of our times. See the statistics of Prof. Rummel on this, on his many web pages. Thus, in future, only tolerant reformers are to be tolerated, i.e., those who confine their reforms to their voluntary supporters and leave all others either with their present systems or with the reforms that they prefer for themselves. – JZ, 25.1.05.  - VOLUNTARY, COMPETITIVE & TOLERANT REFORMERS VS. TERRITORIAL, COERCIVE, MONOPOLISTIC & INTOLERANT REFORMERS, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT REFORMERS & REVOLUTIONARIES

REFORMERS: Ein ... Zitat von Gottfried Benn ... der etwa folgendes geschrieben hat: 'die Welt aendern, nach welchem Geschmack, bitte? die Welt tiefer machen, nach wessen Meinung? die Welt besser machen, nach wessen Meinung? die Welt gerechter machen, nach welchem Masstab der Gerechtigkeit? - Das Konstantin Wecker Buch, 149. - Jeder fuer sich und die Seinen! - A quote from Gottfried Benn, who wrote something like the following: Changing the world? According to whose taste? Making more sense of the world? According to whose opinion? Improving the world? According to whose opinion? Making the world more just? According to which standard of justice) - Each for himself and his own! - i.e. like-minded people. - JZ, 1985.

REFORMERS: Most reformers and educators need to be reformed and enlightened themselves, e.g., on individual rights, market economics, monetary freedom, rightful militias, exterritorial autonomy for experimental freedom, voluntarism, personal law, forms of self-management, alternative publishing and reading media etc. Otherwise, they will remain all too much like sectarians, religious zealots, ideological fanatics, dogmatists etc. Panarchism would direct their energies into more constructive channels and rid them in the fastest way possible of their remaining errors, myths and prejudices. - JZ, 20.9.00, 30.1.02. - & EDUCATORS, ENLIGHTENMENT, NEW DRAFT MANUSCRIPT, GENUINELY CULTURAL REVOLUTION

REFORMERS: Reformers” remain, mostly, unreformed, ignorant and prejudiced. – JZ, 20.12.04. – Nevertheless, at their expense and risk they should be allowed to practise their reforms - among themselves. – JZ, 22.10.07. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM FOR ALL

REFORMERS: The best reformers the world has ever seen are those who commence on themselves.” - Attributed to George Bernard Shaw. - Evan Esar, The Dictionary of Humorous Quotations, p.178 (1949). Unverified in Shaw's published writings. - True for all reforms that can already be realized by individuals in their own affairs. Untrue if dissenting individuals are not free to secede to do their own things for and to themselves. - An individual deserter or military insurrectionist cannot end a war. Mass defection and massive military uprisings, rightfully and intelligently conducted and induced and received - on the other side, and directed against a dictatorship, can. - JZ, 13.10.02, 2.4.09, 21.7.12.

REFORMERS: The theories and practices of radical reformers do require, in order to succeed, first an Ideas Archive, i.e., a proper and special market for their proposals, and, secondly, experimental freedom for volunteers. - JZ, 25.2.99. - The latter requires exterritorial autonomy, i.e. independence from all existing constitutions, laws, regulations and jurisdictions. - JZ, 27.1.02. – Only a panarchistic defence, revolution and liberation program is quite rightful! – JZ, 2.4.09. - RADICALS, IDEAS ARCHIVE, CHANGE, THEORIES, PRACTICE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, PANARCHISM

REFORMERS: There are more than enough reformers but only a few are really able to hit a nail properly on the head.” – Henrik Ibsen. (“Weltverbesserer gibt es genug, aber einen Nagel richtig einschlagen koennen die wenigstens.“) – Nevertheless, they should have freedom to act – granted to them, not over a whole country but only among consenting volunteers. That would reduce the wrongs and damages they could do but give all of them a chance to initiate and to spread real reforms, in a quite rightful way. – JZ, 12.5.08. – Most territorially imposed “reforms” have so far only led to new problems. E.g. the introduction of central banking. – JZ, 2.4.09. - PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAWS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

REFORMS - AMONG VOLUNTEERS ONLY: To innovate is not to reform." - Edmund Burke, A Letter to a Noble Lord, 1796. - But it can be part of a general reform movement when the innovations are undertaken only among volunteers and at their risk and expense. Indeed, this would be the fastest way to achieve more and better reforms for more and more people. All would advance only at their own speed and in accordance with their own desires and never at the expense or risk or depending upon the votes or permissions of others, who fundamentally disagree with them. - JZ, 5.4.89, 8.4.89, 9.9.04. – That process would also be accelerated by a general and special ideas archives and talent registries, designed to bring supply and demand in these spheres together, in special markets. However, a search with Google for “ideas archive” just revealed to me that the term is used and abused by the hundreds of thousands to millions, so that such general ideas archives, if one or several are already existing, are drowned among the mud of relatively trivial and all too limited “ideas archives”. – I offer three books on the subject, as email attachments, free of charge, upon request. One by my father, in German and English. A second one only in German. The third one by myself and my youngest son, directed especially to libertarians. – JZ, 21.7.12.

REFORMS & PARLIAMENTARISM, DEMOCRACY: No great reforms are to be expected from any parliament, at least as long as its territorial and absolutist rule continues. Even if a parliament sometimes acts positively, by law repeals, it is usually only done upon outside pressures and influences. At most parliaments serve to prevent SOME oppressions, abuses, violent revolutions and wars. But too many are caused and maintained by them. They cause still unrecognized injustice and harm by upholding territorialist uniform rule and law over dissenters. To that extent they do not liberate but enslave. Any participation in their political game is enormously wasteful of energies and resources and very doubtful of success, even for the most clear and just claims. Compare the history of free trade and deregulation via parliaments. Only within exterritorially autonomous volunteer groups could parliaments, as free discussion groups, do some good for all the members of such communities. As territorial monopolists and coercers they do inevitably wrong the dissenters and tend to harm and wrong even those who love them, largely by keeping them in perpetual immaturity or forcing them to engage in compromises. Talk, discussion and decision-making for others, at their risk and expense, is not the general solution to our problems that it is still widely believed to be. Nor does "free voting" for such an inherently wrong and flawed to ridiculous system realize all the voting rights and free choices that any individual citizen ought to have and can rightfully ask for. Panarchism would provide the option of e.g. alternative parliaments of all kinds for all dissenting groups, to the extent that these groups want them. Outvoted parties would not have to temporarily resign themselves to their fate, until the next election, just playing the role of the loyal opposition until then. Instead, they could claim victory for their followers and rule them. However, unfulfilled promises would then lead much faster to their failure, because they would no longer have the excuse that the opposition parties and movements prevented them from fulfilling their promises. When parties are really free to act, for their members and voters, then their members want to see positive results, soon. Thus parties without a genuine program would tend to rapidly disappear. – JZ, 25.10.91, 13.1.93, 11.12.03, 9.9.04. – PARTIES, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

REFORMS: 1.) They could merely be the result of majority decisions or public opinion, however prejudiced these are. - 2.) They could be decisions to finally uphold some individual rights or liberties. - 3.) They could be decisions and actions to suppress particular rights and liberties. (Drug war) - 4.) They could be enforced within territorial States. - 5.) They could be undertaken among volunteers only, who have achieved full exterritorial autonomy for their societies, communities and governments and who do not meddle with the affairs of other such communities. – The principle: To each only his own reforms, should be consistently applied. – JZ, 3.12.98, 105.08. – VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

REFORMS: A nation without the means of reform is without the means of survival.” – Edmund Burke. – The first step towards survival in our times consists in redefining and changing the concept and practice of nations and nation States. They are targets, motives and means for ABC mass murder devices. The most important means for reform is individual and group secessionism: All territorial nations have to become dissolved into nations and peoples of volunteers only, held together by whatever they do have in common, under their own personal law. None of them should be granted any territorial monopoly. That is the essential reform for our time. It would soon lead to the solutions for most of the other remaining problems – through unrestricted experimentation in communities of volunteers, all doing their things only for and to themselves and thus advancing as fast as they can or want to. – JZ, 3.5.08.

REFORMS: A referendum within a community of volunteers can be as rightful as a majority decision of shareholders is. The dissenters are free to secede or to sell their shares. – However, more decentralized decision-making within companies and even within communities of volunteers can often be even more advantageous. – JZ, 15.5.08. – DECENTRALIZATION, SELF-MANAGEMENT, VOLUNTARISM

REFORMS: All great reforms, great movements, come from the bottom and not the top. … Wherever there is a wrong, point it out to all the world, and you can trust the people to fight it.” - John Peter Altgeld. - Quoted by Madison, Critics and Crusaders. - The most complete bottom to top approach is best realized via individual secessionism and voluntary associationism in full exterritorial autonomy. - JZ, 13.10.02. - Do the people fight all wrongs pointed out to them or do they habitually ignore most such pointers? The people, as a whole, cannot be sufficiently enlightened on any point at once. But minorities among it can be - and should be free to act upon what they have learned. Then, their activities, will gradually persuade most of the rest of the people, not necessarily all of them. - JZ, 27.11.02. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, ENLIGHTENMENT, PEOPLE

REFORMS: All reforms except a moral one will prove unavailing.” – Carlyle, Essays, Corn Law Rhymes. – All reform ought to apply only to those in favor of them. Imposing them upon peaceful dissenters would be quite immoral. – JZ, 3.5.08. – DIS.

REFORMS: All reforms should only apply to the reformers advocating them. All revolutions only to those, who wish them for themselves. They should all be turned into experiments among volunteers. Voluntarism in almost everything, including e.g. the right, duty and need to protect individual rights and liberties against all significant attacks against or threats to them. – The consent of the offenders is not required. - JZ, 6.11.98, 10.5.08. – REVOLUTIONS, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTATION

REFORMS: Enough To Do at Home: … it is necessary that one’s eye be kept on his own mining, never on repairing the short-comings of others, never on inflicting one’s own unique fragment on others. Indeed, it is important not only to refrain from any overt acts of this kind, but even from all covert thoughts as well. Intentions of reforming others, regardless of how skillfully disguised, are antagonistic to one’s own explorations. Further, they cause others, instinctively, to “run around the corner when they see you coming.” – Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.131. – Think of the numerous vain attempt among couples to reform the partner. But at least in that sphere we have divorce and remarriage options for individuals. – Let all people pick the reforms that they like – for themselves only and like-minded other volunteers. - JZ, 4.5.08. – On the own mining? – I just discovered that all his books seem to be freely offered online by the Mises Institute, in two digital versions, one of them PDF! Another good sign of the times! It downloaded the PDF version, it went fast, although it comes to 6.6 Mbs. - J.Z., 21.7.12. - SELF-IMPROVEMENT VS. ATTEMPTING TO IMPROVE OTHERS & THEIR AFFAIRS, TOLERANCE, NON-INTERVENTION, RESPECTING THEIR INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY UNDER THE OWN PERSONAL LAWS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, NOT EQUAL LAWS, RULES & INSTITUTIONS FOR ALL PEOPLE OF A TERRITORY, TOLERANCE

REFORMS: Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803-1882, Journals, vol, vii, p.205. – Many “reforms” may be classed among the conspiracies, which operate gradually against the rights and liberties of others. We get snowed under by avalanches of “reform” laws that we do not even have the time and energy to read, far less to systematically resist. Some called them salami tactics: Slice by slice the goodness of it disappears. Compare e.g. the initially low rates for new taxes. – Opting out from under such systems is the only practicable and quite rightful way to resist them for individuals and groups of volunteers. – Alas, so far this is still unconstitutional and illegal. Many good things are not impossible but just outlawed. - JZ, 7.7.82, 3.5.08. - All too true for all too many coercive territorial reforms. – JZ, 15.5.08. - "Reforms" are no longer a threat when they are applied only exterritorially and to the volunteers that favor them. - JZ, 13.10.02. - HIDDEN AGENDAS OF TERRITORIAL POLITICIANS, POLITICIANS, PROMISES, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSION

REFORMS: Every reform was once a private opinion, and when it shall be private opinion again, it will solve the problem of the age.” – Emerson, “History”, in Essays, First Series, 1841. – It should not only become a private opinion but also a private or voluntary action or experiment. – JZ, 29.1.12. –p PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUALISM, IDEAS, INFLUENCE

REFORMS: Every reform, however necessary, will by weak minds be carried to an excess which will itself need reforming.” – S. T. Coleridge, Biographia Literaria, ch. I, 1817. – Largely true, if realized territorially. Exterritorial autonomy or personal law reforms among volunteers, like free experiments, are self-containing and self-correcting. – JZ, 5.11.85, 21.7.12. - Thus all should all be confined to communities, societies governance systems of volunteers. Even children are largely free to invent their own games and rules for them. Why should not adults have the same experimental freedom in what matters to them? – JZ, 3.5.08. – To each his own game and voluntary game partners. – JZ, 2.4.09. – PANARCHISM, Q., EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, CONTRACTARIANISM, ASSOCIATIONISM

REFORMS: expecting any real improvement is like asking a drug addict to cure himself with aspirin.” – Poul Anderson, Shield, p.144. – Self-chosen doctors, naturopaths, cures and medicines as well as reforms only, rather than territorially selected and imposed ones! – JZ, 5.3.08, 21.7.12. – VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT

REFORMS: I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself.” – Aldous Huxley. - As if nothing could be achieved through voluntary associations and full freedom of action and experimental freedom for them. - JZ, 22. 11. 06. – The market, free exchange, money, credit, clearing, are not the achievement of individuals but of sufficiently cooperating, communicating and exchanging individuals, forming a free market system with division of labour, free choice of professions, trades and jobs and free exchange in many forms and with many diverse media, clearing, credit and value standard systems. Moreover, the actions of all individuals, on all free markets, sufficiently publicized, do have their effects, however small they may be per individual, whether they seek for the lowest prices they can get or the highest quality or the greatest diversity and specialized offers. The individual choices do add up and created strong trends and direct distributors as well as producers towards satisfying sovereign consumers. – JZ, 21.7.12. - CHANGE, INDIVIDUALISM, SECESSIONISM & PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

REFORMS: In my estimation, more misery has been created by (*) reformers than by any other force in human history. Show me someone who says, ‘Something must be done’ and I will show you a head full of vicious intentions which have no other outlet. What we must strive for always! is to find the natural flow and go with it.” – Frank Herbert, Heretics of Dune, p.102. – Should it be outlawed to try to swim against the current or across it? – I do not deny good intentions to many reformers but their intention to impose them territorially is always immoral. – They should only try to set good examples for others to follow – voluntarily, if they are impressed by these precedents. -  (*) territorial! - JZ, 3.5.08. – VOLUNTARISM OR INDIVIDUAL CHOICES VS. COMPULSION, TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLIES

REFORMS: in the 19th century, and again in the Depression of the thirties, there were great unfairnesses, there were, to borrow a phrase from an earlier period ‘huddled masses yearning to be free’. But ‘yearning to be free’ should have been the guiding concern for the social reformers.” – Stephen Haseler, QUADRANT, 7/77. – Instead, as territorial statists, they restricted their rights and liberties even more so than they were already. The more enterprising did at least emigrate to somewhat more free countries. But by now territorial statism has spread in these countries of such immigrants as well and established territorial feudalistic conditions, a new kind of serfdom, everywhere. – JZ, 3.5.08, 21.7.12.

REFORMS: It is obvious that a free society is one in which the law concerns itself with minimizing the interferences of men in one another’s affairs, and never presumes to interject itself; and it is obvious from that rule that freedom is quite unlike the various reforms that are being peddled on any Grand Street. Every one of them is labeled with a ‘legal directions for taking’”. – Frank Chodorov, Fugitive Essays, p.397. – Correct for all territorially imposed reforms. Incorrect for personal law reforms, because they apply only to the volunteers of an exterritorially autonomous community. – JZ, 3.5.08.

REFORMS: Let him that would move the world, first move himself.” – Socrates – The need for self-improvement is self-evident and hardly worth mentioning. Afterwards also taking an interest in the world, not just in the news as reported by the mass media, or being concerned only with the own person and his own small private affairs, job, family and friends, would be a first sensible step. Each reform attempt requires “self-movement”. Naturally, it has as a self-evident precondition that one reforms and improves oneself as much as possible beforehand, under the circumstances that are imposed upon oneself, using the remaining opportunities, e.g. extensive reading. – The ruling, coercive, monopolistic territorialists would certainly like to confine all their subjects to their remaining small private options and opportunities. – JZ, 8.8.08. – The all sympathize with Hitler’s slogan: “Leader, command! We will follow you!” – Are there any territorial and leading politicians which are not infected by this leadership spleen, desire or addiction? – JZ, 21.7.12. – LEADERSHIP, RULERS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM OF PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, SELF-IMPROVEMENT COMBINED WITH VOLUNTARISM, DIS., Q.

REFORMS: Only people who are individually free to secede can easily become reformers. The others are entangled by territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and administrative regulations and public opinion or the opinions of recognized experts. – JZ, 25.8.93.

REFORMS: Pamphlet-vendors are the most important springs in the machinery of reform.” – Richard Carlyle, THE REPUBLICAN, weekly journal, V, 279, 1822. - George Seldes, The Great Quotations. – Even now radical pamphlets rarely find themselves reproduced in the mass media or even mentioned. But there is space for them on the Internet and on CDs. All pro-freedom ones could, probably, be very cheaply be published together, even with all freedom books, articles and freedom magazines, on a single HD. Will I ever see them so combined? – JZ, 15.2.08. However, once reformers are free to secede, they will only have to struggle with the difficulties involved in their reforms, undisturbed by those, who do not believe in them. – JZ, 15.2.08. – My pamphlet series, PEACE PLANS, of which 1779 issues appeared, alas, most of them only on microfiche, has certainly not led to any reforms that I am aware of. – JZ, 28.309. - PAMPHLETS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, Q., CD PUBLISHING OPTIONS

REFORMS: Reformers like to play God, as far as their power goes. – For instance: “I would have created a better world.” – JZ tr. from the German version of a remark by Alfonso the Wise: “Mejor habria you hecho el mundo.” – ‘(“Ich wuerde die Welt besser gemacht haben.”) – Since, usually, they cannot impose it upon the whole world, they try to impose it upon a whole territory, where they live, and all its population. They might even try to impose their supposed ideal, namely territorial democracy, upon the whole world and this by force of arms, thus reviving imperialism and colonialism to some extent. Upholding exterritorial autonomy for all dissenting minorities would be quite another matter. It would make friends, not enemies. It would not lead to any nationalistic wars but liberate all volunteers to do their own things - but only for or to themselves. – JZ, 4.5.08, 21.7.12. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, TOLERANCE VS. TERRITORIAL DOMINATION

REFORMS: Reforms through the law, i.e., voting, politicians, parties, judges, lawyers, policemen, bureaucrats? Or reforms rather in spite of them, largely ignoring them, as far as one can? – JZ, 29.8.96. – Until we can finally legally and constitutionally opt out under their reforms we are not free enough to undertake sufficient reforms of our own. – JZ, 10.5.08. – Q.

REFORMS: Significant reforms, genuine improvements, through parliaments? That may take decades, sometimes, historically, it took centuries and some haven’t occurred as yet. Moreover, the few positive steps that were taken were all too often reversed or restricted again, by contrary legislation, due to vested interests or popular ignorance, errors and prejudices. Moreover, the same wrongs and mistakes were repeated over and over again by “representative” legislators, representing masses of ignorant and prejudiced people rather then the few relatively enlightened ones. As opposed to this experience, any reforms via tolerant experimentation, i.e. only among volunteers, could be realized by them almost instantaneously, once they are no longer territorially suppressed, whether this is done legally or illegally. If very successful, then they could and probably would be rapidly copied or adopted by other groups of dissenters. Applied among volunteers only, they would also tend to last much longer among them. – JZ, 21.7.91, 12.5.08. - If they are successful. If they are not, then they are likely to become discontinued relatively fast, unlike territorially imposed "reforms" that failed, e.g. like Prohibition and the War against Drugs, Progressive Taxation and Compulsory Schooling. - JZ, 20.2.11, 21.7.12.

REFORMS: The greatest reforms which could now be accomplished would consist in undoing the work of statesmen in the past, and the greatest difficulty in the way of reform is to find out how to undo their work without injury to what is natural and sound.” – W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, p.102. – Let individuals and communities of like-minded volunteers choose their own systems and experiments for themselves. Then they would no longer clash with each other and could only blame themselves for their own mistakes. – JZ, 4.5.08, 21.7.12. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIAL COERCIVE “EQUALITY”.

REFORMS: The most eager reformers had to learn that they deprive themselves of all power when they race ahead of the slowly advancing masses. Upon any revolution a reaction always follows.“ – Wilson, Der Staat. – JZ re-translation of: “Die eifrigsten Reformer haben lernen muessen, dass sie sich selbst jeglicher Macht berauben, wenn sie den schwerfaelligen Massen zu weit voraneilen. Auf eine Revolution ist stets eine Reaktion gefolgt.“ – What is true for territorial reforms, imposed on whole populations, is not true for reforms which volunteers chose for their own communities, under personal laws only and without claiming any territorial power. – JZ, 15.5.08. – “Communication is only possible between equals.”- Maximum and most creative and productive collaboration requires voluntarism. – JZ, 21.7.12.

REFORMS: The old world must be destroyed and replaced by a new one. When you have freed your mind from the fear of God, and that childish respect for the fiction of right, then all the remaining chains that bind you - property, marriage, morality, and justice - will snap asunder like threads.” - Mikhail A. Bakunin, Dieu et l'Etat, posthumously published, 1882. - Once individuals and groups are free to secede and do their own things in their alternative institutions then and thereby they do transform or destroy the old order much more rightfully and effectively than if they tried to directly and completely as well as immediately to destroy it. - JZ, 13.10.02. - The same and other kinds of property, marriage, principles and justice will prevail in different panarchies. – An “anarchist” opposed to property, marriage, morality and justice, who, apparently, aimed at a territorial kind of despotism with him as the “great” leader or misleader. - JZ, 27.11.02, 20.2.11, 21.7.12. - REFORM VS. SELF-IMPROVEMENT, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY REFORMS: REFORMS VS. DESTRUCTION, ABOLITION

REFORMS: The reformer should convince the consumer – not rule the producer.” – Charles R. LaDow, THE FREEMAN, 3/74. – The reformer should try to convince others by his own and quite tolerant experiments among like-minded people, just like a scientist or inventor would. – JZ, 4.5.08. – Neither the reformer nor the consumer or the producer should be territorially ruled by any others. – J.Z., 21.7.12. – RULERS, CONSUMERS, PRODUCERS, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM

REFORMS: The Reformer, a pre-Civil War publication, was opposed to reform: that was its reform.” – Louis Filler, A Dictionary of American Social Reform, Philosophical Library, New York, 1963, in the preface, p.1. – All “reforms” ought to be applied only among those who are in favor of them!” – Panarchism! – JZ, 9.9.08, 21.7.12. – VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

REFORMS: The reforming zeal is good; but with too many of us it takes the form of wanting to reform others, to persuade them to accept our own standards and ideas.” - IPA FACTS, 12/68. – Their persuasion attempts are rightful and harmless. Their legislation attempts and dictatorial usurpation, all based on territorial notions are wrongful and harmful. The population of one territory should never be presumed to be one people that ought to live under the same laws and institutions. – JZ, 5/73, 4.5.08, 21.7.12. – Compare, for instance, how members of “one” nation try to distinguish themselves e.g. by their fashion choices and hair styles. No one wants to be just another blue ant. But in too many spheres our individual preferences are obstructed by wrongful territorial laws. – JZ, 20.10.08. - TERRITORIALISM, PEOPLE, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS

REFORMS: The spirit of improvement is not always a spirit of liberty, for it may aim at forcing improvements on an unwilling people.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859, p.3. – Correct for territorial reforms, incorrect for the voluntary and exterritorial ones of panarchies. – JZ, 13.5.08. – VOLUNTARISM VS. MONOPOLISM & COERCION

REFORMS: The Thurians ordained that whosoever would go about to abolish an old law, or establish a new one, should present himself with a halter around his neck, to the end that, if his proposal were not approved, he might be hanged at once.” – Michel de Montaigne, Essays I, 1580, - [Thurians = a people of Southern Italy.] – An unnecessary cruelty if the proposal is not for a territorial reform for the whole population but merely for an existing community of volunteers or for a proposed one. – 15.5.08. - Simple alternative: Let it be applied only to himself and like-minded people. That is the only kind of “noose” or opportunity he needs and is entitled to have. - JZ, 9.7.86, 15.5.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

REFORMS: There is no place (*) for social reformers in government posts, for these positions endow them with coercive power which they mistakenly use to achieve their “reforms”. Reform, to be meaningful, is a volitional turn for the better to which coercion is obviously antagonistic.” – Leonard E. Read, The Coming Aristocracy, p.63. – VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM - (*) There should be no place for reformers in territorial governments. – JZ, 3.5.08.

REFORMS: There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” - Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513. – Reforms under territorialism should be distinguished from reforms under exterritorialism or voluntarism. – JZ, 28.3.09, 21.7.12. - INNOVATIONS, IDEAS, CHANGE

REFORMS: This must be said: There are too many “great” men in the world; there are too many legislators, planners, founders of societies, leaders of nations, fathers of their country, etc., etc. Too many people place themselves above mankind in order to guide its footsteps; too many people make a career of being concerned with mankind.” – Bastiat, in G. C., Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.246. – Apparently, he thought here only of territorial States and societies. There cannot be too many reformers that merely want to experiment among like-minded reformers. Most of their reforms may be quite worthless or harmful – but only to them, under that conditions. Others might set successful pioneering examples for the rest and there would be no justified complaints against them, because they would also spread only among volunteers. – JZ, 15.5.08. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

REFORMS: Those who are fond of setting things to rights, have no great objection to seeing them wrong.” – William Hazlitt, Characteristics, 1823. - Alas, they usually don’t see the wrongness in their own reforms. Especially when they apply them territorially upon involuntary victims. – But they do find much wrong with the reforms of other reformers. – They act just like religious zealots, who consider all the other religions to be wrong but are blind to the flaws in their own. - JZ, 13.5.08. – Individual sovereignty and individual secessionism, exterritorially autonomous associationism, full monetary and financial freedom, free migration and other important individual rights and liberties are still largely unknown or unappreciated or even opposed by them. Most people are not even radically in favor of freedom of expression and freedom of information! Thus, what can be expected in the near future under that condition - from the “masses” and their territorial representatives in their mental condition in form of quite rightful and rational actions? Very little, I am afraid. The relatively enlightened ones must become quite free to experiment among themselves. The still quite unenlightened must also become free to practise their errors and prejudices – but only among themselves and at their own expense and risk. From the successful experiments a kind of chain reaction could then spread, sooner or later, once they have attained a “critical mass” or quite obvious successes, like e.g. suddenly ending inflation and involuntary unemployment among themselves. Even a man like Gandhi, with numerous flaws in his ideas, thinking and behavior, could influence millions within a few years. If he had advocated individual and group secessionism and the mutual tolerance of experimental freedom for all, from the smallest beginnings by a few volunteers, all at their risk and expense only, he might have changed the world much more thoroughly than he did. Alas, he remained only a territorial nationalist, although at least only of the non-violent kind. But his non-violent supporters became so fanatic that they crowded, injured and almost killed him, merely in their attempts to get close to him, to see, hear or to touch him - in spite of the protection he had. – I am just reading: William L. Shirer, Ghandi, A Memoir, Abacus, 1981. - J.Z., 21.7.12. - TERRITORIALISM

REFORMS: To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one’s responsibility as a free man.” – Alan Paton, The Challenge of Fear, SATURDAY REVIEW, Sept. 9, 1967. – Attempting to impose even the best reforms territorially upon all of the population is wrong and provokes resistance and is contrary to the rights, liberties, duties and responsibilities of a reasonable, rational, moral and free person. Even the best reforms, not to speak of the worst of them, should only be applied to volunteers. Among them they would get their best chance – and would not interfere with the lives and preferences of outsiders. – JZ, 13.5.08, 21.7.12. – DIS.

REFORMS: To innovate is not to reform.” – Edmund Burke, A Letter to a Noble Lord, 1796. – But it can be part of a general reform movement when the innovations are undertaken only among volunteers and at their risk and expense. Indeed, this would be the fastest way to achieve more and better reforms for most. – JZ, 5.4.89, 21.7.12. – Innovations and reforms only for the innovators, reformers and their adherents – i.e., exterritorially, under personal laws! – JZ, 3.5.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES

REFORMS: Try to reform the own life, not that of others, unless they happen to agree with you. – JZ, 28.10.94. – TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

REFORMS: Tyrants have no conscience and reformers no feeling; and the world suffers both by the plague and by the cure.” – Horace Walpole, Letter to the Earl of Strafford, June 26, 1790. – No feeling or no sense or no moral sense - and so even the well meaning reformers become territorially tyrannical themselves. – JZ, 9.7.86, 2.4.09. – IGNORANCE, LACK OF INTEREST, KNOWLEDGE & SOUND IDEAS, COMBINED WITH AN ABUNDANCE OF POPULAR ERRORS, MYTHS & PREJUDICES! – DIS., IDEAS ARCHIVE, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BEST REFUTATIONS, DEFINITIONS

REFORMS: What libertarians will find most attractive about Belloc’s essay is his anticipation of the thesis that state-enacted “reform” will usually function to protect and solidify the positions of those most dominant at the time these reforms are enacted. Such reforms will convert current and uncertain economic advantages into more permanent legal privileges.” – Erick Mack, in REASON, 12/98. – Compare the experience with regulations. Almost all governmental constitutions, laws, regulations and jurisdictions are territorial, i.e. outlaw competition in their sphere and grant privileges or monopolies and with them produce victims. – JZ, 3.5.08.

REFORMS: While there is always room for improvements, there is never a sufficient excuse for making matters even worse than they are, even though only with the best intentions – except among tolerant volunteers. They deserve what they choose for themselves, as long as they are willing to put up with it. – JZ, 17.10.96, 10.5.08. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

REFORMS: With what form of oppression do you propose to replace the existing form?” – Pareto, quoted in RED & BLACK, No. 4, 1972. – Q.

REFUGEES & LIBERTY, ASYLUM, FREE MIGRATION, IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS: I am a refugee to this country, not because it manufactures Olympic winners or the greatest technology in the world or any other single achievement found in it, but because it is the best environment for individuals to pursue their own happiness, according to their own individual talents, abilities and choices." - T. Machan, Liberty and Culture, 288. - I wish the U.S. were still as close to that ideal as they once were. But even in its greatest times, it could not offer, with its territorial system of collectivist sovereignty and compulsory membership, the best kinds of liberties and opportunities that would be provided by competing and exterritorially autonomous governments of volunteers or panarchies. Why stop short of full liberty - if one wants full liberty, or why not freedom for each and everyone to stop at and enjoy the level of liberty that he finds satisfactory? - JZ, 5.9.92, 5.2.93, 9.9.04, 21.7.12.

REFUGEES & PANARCHISM: - People free to try to productively employ streams of refugees and deserters would soon find ways to do so or these immigrants, free to do so, would find them themselves for their labor and service capacity. They would not be bound by the restrictions that others have imposed upon freedom in production and freedom in exchange.  They would see in these refugees not mouths to be fed but hands that can do more than feed their own mouths, with donated foods or money, if they are free to do so. More people would mean greater division of labor and thus an increased productivity and standard of living. Compulsory licensing systems should also not apply to refugee professionals and their potential customers, who would prefer to manage without them.  Doctors and engineers would no more have to work as taxi- or truck drivers because they do not have a local licence for their profession. - JZ, 20.9.04. – Even if millions came every year to Australia - if they e.g. were free to produce and exchange only among themselves, they could keep themselves fully employed, just doing this and this with a rising standard of living among themselves and without reducing the standard of living of the rest of the population of Australia. If freely integrated as free producers and exchangers, then, on the contrary, division of labor would be increased, thus also productivity and the average standard of living. – J.Z., 21.7.12. – IMMIGRATION, OPEN BORDERS, DESERTION, FREE BANKING, IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS, MONETARY FREEDOM.

REFUGEES, ALIENS, FOREIGNERS: Aliens and dissenters to become exterritorially autonomous, especially refugees and deserters, "economic refugees" included. Full exterritorial autonomy is required, not only for extraterrestrials, should they ever arrive here, but right now for our internal "aliens" and dissenters. It is absurd to consider their work and services as threatening for us. But the policies of territorial governments towards them does very well reveal how ignorant, prejudiced and helpless territorial governments and their voters are, at least in this respect. - JZ 18.4.92, 13.1.93, 20.9.04, 21.7.12. - MINORITIES, DESERTERS, ECONOMIC REFUGEES, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS


REFUGEES: Allow the dozens of millions of refugees in the world to be paid for their productive work with privately or cooperatively issued vouchers, in money denominations, for goods and services now ready for sale in abundance, but hard to sell for monopoly money, also using sound value standards in them and permit the goods and service providers to price their goods and services also in these sound value standards. Then most of these refugees will soon find productive jobs, so paid, and their unemployment problem and their confinement to refugee camps, will soon be over. Once these unemployed can thus readily get jobs, the native unemployed and their potential employers will demand the same right for themselves. Full employment for all able and willing to work would thus be achieved and thus much of the opposition to free migration and of asylum to asylum seekers would soon disappear. However, we should not automatically grant them also all the “benefits” of our “Welfare States” but permit them their own welfare services, at their own expense, while exempting them from that part of all our taxes now financing Welfare State activities for all. Then the taxpayers would also have no reason to complain about handouts to immigrants. Moreover, to the extent that their customs, traditions, ideologies and beliefs are different from our own, we should allow them, on an individual and voluntary basis, the choice of their own exterritorialy autonomous communities and societies under personal law, not only the practice of their own religions and various cultural activities. Those, who would still be opposed to them, should be free to segregate themselves in their own exterritorially autonomous communities, not welcoming any or only particular immigrants. Those without such prejudices should be free to establish their own integrated communities in which all kinds of peaceful and productive immigrants are welcomed rather than despised, ignored or looked down upon. This world, each continent, each country, belongs to all the peoples in the world and none of its territories belongs exclusively only to one kind of people, especially not seeing how mixed their races, customs, languages and traditions already are. But, let all of them segregate themselves or integrate themselves on a voluntary basis as much as they like, even though most of their children and grandchildren might soon come to find some of their voluntary segregation attempts ridiculous and opt out of them. – JZ, 29.12.92, 7.10.08, 21.7.12. – MONETARY FREEDOM, FULL EMPLOYMENT, ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF PAYMENT FOR WAGES & SALARIES

REFUGEES: Any refugee from any dictatorially ruled country should be automatically granted refugee and asylum status in any relatively free country, any time, but this without any automatic claim to tax supported social services. Nor should they be automatically subjected to the territorial laws of the guest country, unless they want to individually adopt them for themselves and their affairs. They should, especially, not be subjected to the laws of monetary and financial despotism, which cause unemployment and inflation, sales difficulties and bankruptcies. They should be free to adopt their own laws and institutions for themselves but not authorized to impose them, by majority votes, upon any dissenters. Then they would soon be recognized as great assets and allies in the host countries, rather than as burdens or competitors for jobs and sales. – JZ, 12.12.94, 9.5.08.

REFUGEES: If governments would get out of their way and that of all other people able and willing to work productively and to exchange freely and stopped “caring” for them, as if they had only mouths and not minds and hands, then even millions of recent refugees into a country would cease to be a problem for that country and become an asset instead. Then they would be welcomed as workers, professionals, traders, customers, clients etc., as productive and self-supporting people, who would help to increase the wealth of the country to which they fled. For instance, much of the ready-for -sale goods and services in any somewhat developed country (not stricken by a natural catastrophe or civil war, war or revolution) could then be turned into alternative currencies, which could express an enormous demand for additional employees and would greatly increase turnovers and the need for additional goods and services. If sufficiently explored in advance, such alternative currencies could be introduced within hours and not only helpt to employ millions of refugees and deserters but also fully employ millions of formerly unemployed or underemployed “natives” or earlier immigrants. In the absence of an issue monopoly and legal tender and freedom in the choice of value standards, the good alternative currencies would drive out bad ones and any existing bad currency, thus e.g. reducing the government’s paper money very soon to merely a sound tax foundation currency (with a stable value standard, as sound as anything can be under compulsory instead of voluntary taxation), helping to clear the government’s tax takes against its government expenditures. In this form it could even anticipate its tax returns for the next 2 to 6 months – until its issues showed their first small discounts. Then further issues would become impossible or would be discontinued in its own interest. Currencies “based” upon “government assets” or public debts for medium or long terms would then become impossible too, because they would be greatly discounted or altogether refused and the other and sound private currencies would be preferred to them. Here, too, good currencies, with a sound and short-term reflux foundation, would drive out the inferior ones, those without such a demand foundation for them. The supermarkets and shopping centers could become the main lenders for short-term loans to pay wages and salaries with. They could then also pay their own employees, tradesmen, some suppliers and running costs with their own exchange media. All that would greatly boost and ensure their turnovers. – Inflation, unemployment, deflation and sales difficulties are the price to be paid for a uniform monopoly currency. – To facilitate that kind of development, the legal and illegal immigrants should not be automatically subjected to the laws of the country they fled to. Instead, they should be able to get their own personal law options and for their own voluntary communities societies and federations also full exterritorial autonomy, if they desire this. – They might be welcomed by their kinds of rightful and alternative governments in exile that they would choose for themselves and that had already been established as exterritorially autonomous communities by prior refugees and immigrants and recognized by the territorial government as allies against any foreign despotic regime. - JZ, 22.1.90, 14.5.08, 20.2.11, 21.7.12. – MONETARY FREEDOM, FREE BANKING, FULL EMPLOYMENT, SHOP CURRENCIES, UNEMPLOYMENT, SALE DIFFICULTIES, TAX FOUNDATION PAPER MONEY, IMMIGRATION, MONETARY FREEDOM, GOVERNMENTS IN EXIL.

REFUGEES: Immigration barriers are crimes against humanity, especially for refugees from un-free countries or populations and their territorial governments. These restrictions are enforced by walls, fences, naval blockages, capture and incarceration and the threat of or practice of deportation back to the regimes from which they fled. These wrongful restrictions are largely motivated by the effects of monetary and financial despotism upon employment. With full employment achieved, largely through full monetary and financial freedom, releasing the monetary demand for the labor of the unemployed and of the immigrants (largely in form of standardized and typified goods and service vouchers, using stable value standards, issued by the providers of goods and services, e.g. as an expansion of the shop currency system used in Australia in consumer credits), the antagonism against immigrants would soon disappear. They would then no longer be perceived as competitors for the scarce and at the same time unsound and depreciating monopoly money of the government. Such changes could come gradually and yet fast, the voluntary and panarchistic way, simply by allowing immigrants and national dissenters to apply their own principles and practices in this sphere, in their own spheres, under their own personal laws. At least some of these experiments would succeed and set examples that would be followed by others, when they are ready for them. Without the money issue monopoly and legal tender power for it, i.e. under voluntary acceptance and the refusal option and under free market rating or discounting as a possibility, good money would drive out the bad money and would be in sufficient supply for all desired and possible exchanges, to the extent that they are not settled through free clearing or non-cash transfers or other cash payment options. – To the extent that the money of the government is good enough, e.g. has sufficient tax foundation, it would not have to be afraid of competition against it. It would not need an issue monopoly and legal tender power. – This competition would see to it that it confined itself to sound issues of its own currency. - JZ, 18.7.95, 10.5.08. – MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM, FULL EMPLOYMENT, STABLE COMPETING CURRENCIES 

REFUGEES: Refugees, defectors and deserters from despotically ruled governments, war zones and civil war areas voted with their feet. We should respect that right to vote and not restrict it via immigration barriers and concentration camps for illegal immigrants or via deportation, work and residence permits, passports, visas and green card requirements. Neither immigration not emigration should be legally restricted. They are basic individual human rights and liberties. But we should go beyond that kind of voting rights and our usual party political territorial voting rights. Our own dissenters should be free to vote themselves, individually and via their voluntary groups, into whatever constitutional, legal, juridical and other institutional systems they prefer for themselves, as their kind of internal asylum they are entitled to by natural law and we should grant the same right to all legal and illegal immigrants. – The result would be a large number of very diverse and free experiments in the political, economic and social spheres in all territories. All only undertaken at the expense and risk of these volunteers. Most of them would be failures or disappointing - but a few would succeed. And their successes could then be spread – by voluntary acceptance – very rapidly to most if not all others, shocking a few people but delighting most of their voluntary acceptors. Thus we could turn Australia rapidly into the most free and most “lucky” and prosperous country in the world, a shiny example for all other countries. The different points of view of the refugees, defectors and deserters would constitute valuable input to this kind of free experimentation. They would not be perceived as a burden by others or as dangerous competitors. No one would be taxed to support or participate in their experiments. We could all learn very much from each other, from their and our failures as well as all successes. Progress in the social sciences might become as fast as is in the computer sphere. Everyone could rightly complain only about his own errors and mistakes, his own choices. E.g. mass unemployment and inflation could then be done away with - even within more hours to days, as fast as people were capable to comprehend and apply successful changes, reforms and the abolition of legal and territorial restrictions on creative, productive and free exchange activities. We would get consumer sovereign choices towards all kinds of public services and free enterprise chances and free competition in their provision. Free market and free contract choices would be extended into the spheres that were so far still territorially monopolized by governments. We could thus establish the first genuine “paradise” for workers, entrepreneurs, investors, innovators and consumers and also for cooperators and partners. – Those still believing in territorial politicians and their platforms could retain them, exterritorially and under personal laws, for themselves, at their own expense and risk. As far as I am concerned, they would be welcome to them. - JZ, 23.7.95, 9.5.08, 21.7.12. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL IN ALL SPHERES – ALWAYS ONLY AT THE OWN RISK & EXPENSE. IT WOULD TEND TO LEAD TO PROGRESS & PROSPERITY UNLIMITED.

REFUGEES: Why are innocent refugees, as a rule, fleeing, - apart from natural catastrophes? They are trying to escape certain degrees of territorial domination, which are leading to political, economic and social conditions that they find unjustified, harmful and unbearable, to territories whose populations are somewhat less badly treated by their territorials systems and governments. As free human beings they should have this choice. As illegalized and prosecuted “aliens” or “foreigners” they haven’t. Alas, there is as yet no country in the world where they would escape all territorial domination. If there were one, then it could soon set many attractive examples to the people of all other countries. Its population would rapidly grow and its influence would be felt in the rest of the world. – JZ, 23.6.93, 11.5.08, 21.7.12. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, ASYLUM, FREE MIGRATION, FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT, RESIDENCE, WORK & PROFESSION ALL OVER THE WORLD, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM VS. TERRITORIAL LAWS & INSTITUTIONS

REFUSE ALLEGIANCE, SECEDE! If the tax-gatherer or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, 'But what shall I do?' my answer is, 'if you really wish to do anything, resign your office.' When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished." - Thoreau, Resistance to Government, 200. - But will he resign, when this is the only job available to him and, especially, if he has dependents to support? Being more realistic and not expecting everybody to act heroically in accordance with the highest principles, no matter how much this would be costing him immediately and for the foreseeable future, one should also teach him how to supply himself with paid work through and within free market relationships, including especially monetary and financial freedom arrangements. - JZ, 14.1.93. - At least one should point out to him where such information is easily and cheaply available, as, e.g., in my PEACE PLANS series in microfiche, and in some of my digitized files, e.g. on my first CD. - JZ, 9.9.04. – UNEMPLOYMENT, FULL EMPLOYMENT, JOBS, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM, FREE EXCHANGE, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, FREE ASSOCIATIONISM, SELF-HELP & SELF-RESPONSIBILITY IN EVERY SPHERE.

REFUSING TO JOIN: the peculiar democratic privilege of refusing.” – William Tenn, Brooklyn Project, p.160 in: James Gunn, The Road to Science Fiction, # 3, From Heinlein to Here. - Alas, territorial democracies have still not fully realized that right. - JZ, 20.2.11. - OR TO REMAIN ASSOCIATED, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

REGENERATION: Regeneration is the healing and heightening of the physical and mental energy of an organism. - It follows either a situation of sickness of the organism (or of some of its parts) or a situation of malaise (e.g. impasse) where the existence of problems is not matched by the capacity to find solutions. - The human being is a whole made of biological and cultural entities that operate as building blocks. They can be the source either of evolution and development or involution and degeneration - Biological and cultural entities can be suffocated and altered in their functional development, can be put under excessive stress and attacked by some unhealthy agents, in other words can be transformed into and reproduce viruses that will engender sickness and malaise in the organism (i.e. physical, intellectual or spiritual cancer). - A virus is a parasitic agent that preys on weak/weakened entities, by infiltrating, replicating and causing damage to tissues not sufficiently healthy and strong to withstand the attack. - Regeneration is a process that succeeds in fighting the viruses, healing the attacked entities and even enhancing (by immunization) the general strength of the organism. - The organism of the human being is here considered as an integrated whole of nature (biology) and nurture (culture). This is never clearer than when a tissue is under attack and the counterattack, in order to be successful, must be of both a physical and mental order, because health is a physical and mental concern/compound. - - "Mens sana in corpore sano." (Juvenal, Satires, X) - "Mens sana in corpore sano is a foolish saying. The sound body is a product of the sound mind." (Bernard Shaw, 1903) - For this reason we need to posit a basic unit having mental (significative) and material (substantive) qualities and performing the task of regeneration. - This basic unit is here called "seme" and the term could be intended as the conceptual and practical fusion of semen/seed and sema/sign (i.e. meaning) - The "seme" is characterized by being a - germinator, that is a producer of new original and healthy combinations - gladiator, that is a fighter for new original and healthy combinations, - propagator, that is a diffuser of new original and healthy combinations. - The Regeneration is here considered as being: - a micro affair (regeneration is performed by the basic units within the total organism); a direct affair (regeneration is achieved through personal initiative); a free affair (all of the healthy entities must be free to react in order to regenerate the entire organism). - - Regeneration takes place when healthy productive entities (the "semes") germinate, fight back and propagate while the unhealthy destructive ones (viruses) lose strength, yield terrain and finally die out. - Looking at the wide picture, it seems reasonable to conclude that, in current times, human beings, through their technological and cultural artifacts, have increased the possibilities either of total destruction or of speedy regeneration. - Undertaking either of those paths is clearly, as it has always been, up to individuals. - - "I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscientious endeavor." (Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854) - - Amid a lot of still discouraging realities, there are also some hopeful signs of openness and awareness. If they spread and multiply, they could signify the development of new original human actors for the present and the future in place of the mass production of identical dysfunctional replicators of the past. - Only in that case, through a cross-fertilization and an appropriate selection of different healthy "semes" that will transmit and transform the best of the past into the best in the future, could a regeneration of individuals and communities take place. - The technological potentialities are increasingly in place and what is now needed is a cultural climate that assigns the main role not to the state and its servants but, once again, to the human being, as in the Age of Renaissance. - Gian Piero de Bellis in: Scenarios for the Future. Scenarios for the Future - RENAISSANCE, RECOVERY, REBUILDING SOCIETY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, COMPREHENSIVE ASSOCIATIONISM & VOLUNTARISM, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, A SECULAR REFORMATION, CONSISTENT TOLERANCE, MUTUALISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-MANAGEMENT & SELF-DETERMINATION

REGISTER, THE: Santa Ana, Col., Jan. 12, 1962: "Democracy with a Small 'd'" - reproduced as a leaflet by OCI Bookshelf and in PEACE PLANS No. 15, plan 240, pages 9-11. See: GALAMBOS, Prof.

REGISTRY FOR GOVERNMENT MEMBERSHIP: They are not to be monopoly institutions but competitive enterprises, like private directories. - JZ, n.d. - Some "libertarians" believed that such registration would constitute a real problem! - JZ, 5.11.11.

REGULATIONS: I believe in regulation, but it has to be self-regulation. The people who operate a business are the ones who know best how to manage it. It isn’t the job of government to control the free market.” – David Garnett, Stargonauts, Orbit, 1994, p.163. – But the competition from a really free market, including full publicity for all bad business practices, will, without government protectionism, ultimately drive those out of business who do not self-regulate themselves sufficiently. – Government monopolies and governmental coercion have prevented that from happening for the “business” of territorial government. They are institutions that outlawed and prosecuted competition against themselves and do not grant their voters, dissenters and involuntary customers full consumer sovereignty, full individual sovereignty, including individual secessionism and voluntary associationism under personal laws. No other business is allowed to get away with this kind behavior as long as territorial governments have been. – Their time is up – or ought to be up, for, as territorial warfare States, armed with ABC mass murder devices, they threaten to wipe us and themselves off the face of this planet. - JZ, 24.9.07. - BUSINESS & SELF-REGULATION, LAISSEZ FAIR, REGULATION BY FREE PRICING, COMPETITION, FREE MARKETS, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

REGULATIONS: It is just as wrong to impose regulation on businesses, because of their alleged shortcomings, as it would be to regulate newspapers because some of them print trash, or to control churches because some cults believe in handling snakes.” – Melvin D. Barger, FREEDOM, 4/76. - We are not constitutionally and legally authorized to fire the regulators but we should strive for the freedom to secede from them. - JZ, 20.2.11.

REGULATIONS: Now that you've paid your federal income taxes, which were $ 737 billion in 1997, you can begin saving for your regulatory taxes, which were coincidentally $ 737 billion in 1998, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. This is the cost of federal environmental safety and economic regulation compliance. It exceeds the $ 640 billion of 1996 pretax US corporate profits and excludes the $ 17 billion it costs to pay an infestation of bureaucrats to enforce the rules. You pay this tax in the form of increased prices for practically everything you buy. Perhaps when you realize the collective cost of your good intentions and those of every other voter, you'll vote for Libertarians rather than authoritarians. - Bill Holmes. – As much, in further inflated money, is currently spent in the federal bail-outs in the USA. – JZ, 28.3.09. - It is all part of the not so funny game that the territorialists force us to play with them - at our expense and risk and for their benefit. - JZ, 20.2.11.TAXATION & BUREAUCRACY, LIBERTARIANISM, TERRITORIALISM

REGULATIONS: Of regulatory measures, we may ask: Is it right to force people to do these things against their wills?” – Clarence B. Carson, THE FREEMAN, 5/76, p.303. – Let the involuntary victims of all regulations and laws secede. – JZ, 4.5.08.

REGULATIONS: On regulatory agencies: The agency is given power to ferret out violations of its regulations, bring charges, prosecute the violators, and sit as judge and jury, determining guilt or innocence. It then pronounces appropriate sentence. Strangely enough, the agency rarely loses a case!” - THE RUFF TIMES, from its introductory offer. - TERRITORIALISM

REGULATIONS: Regulate and control the regulators and controllers by depriving them of all territorial powers and privileges and confining all their activities to like-minded volunteers in their own self-help and self-responsibility organizations, exterritorially quite autonomous. Their failures and their successes would then soon become rather obvious in comparisons with competing societies and communities without these helpers and protectors. – JZ, 21.7.93, 11.5.08. – CONTROLS, LAWS, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM

REGULATIONS: Since no regulation can be conceived that would not reduce freedom of action, it goes without saying that regulatory bureaucracies are an assault upon liberty.” – Clarence B. Carson, THE FREEMAN, 1/76. – We need the freedom of action to opt out from under the regulators and law-makers. – Regulators and regulations only for those who love them! - JZ, 4.5.08. - BUREAUCRACY, LIBERTY, FREEDOM OF ACTION.

REGULATIONS: struggle … unceasingly against those who would regulate the lives of all men.” – Roche III, Bastiat, 226. – Rather achieve the freedom to drop out from under them. You would not even have the time and energy to read all of the regulations, far less to resist all of them effectively. There are many thousands who are paid out of taxes to uphold and to multiply them. - Ordinary resistance would be a Don Quichote fight against a windmill. – JZ, 4.5.08. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM,

REGULATIONS: The only thing that needs to be regulated is government.” – Charles Blackwell, SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 2/80.– Territorial governments are too big and powerful to become reformed. Our only chance against them is the introduction of individual and group secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers, i.e., alternative institutions and societies. A long time ago, under-populated countries offered such an option via free immigration. But such frontiers do no longer exist, except the big one, coming up, in form of space settlements. – Now we need internal escape options. - JZ, 4.5.08. – PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENT, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS!

REGULATIONS: The principle of “no taxation without representation” must again become a rallying cry of Americans. Only Congress represents American voters, and the process of transferring regulatory powers – which are a hidden power to tax – to unelected, uncontrollable, and unfirable bureaucrats must stop.” – William E. Simon, THE FREEMAN, 8/78. – Legislation has become mass production to such an extent that it could be handled only through breaking up parliaments into numerous special committees, whose decisions then got almost automatically the stamp of approval by parliaments, without any further discussion. The special interest lobbyists have more influence upon these committees than have the voters. Moreover, that “influence” involves probably also much bribery. That committee procedure, too, was not authorized by the voters. But it was a natural result of parliaments usurping all too many functions. A further delegation to outside bodies was a natural development of this trend. - The above proposal does not go far enough. Laws, institutions and regulations only for volunteers, i.e., those who do want to impose them upon themselves! – Thus a counter-trend will be set in operation: Less government, less taxes, less laws, less bureaucracy. Conventional territorial direct and representative democracy, not limited by an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties, which would include the right to secede and to live under personal laws, has become unworkable or counter-productive, a mutual “plunder bund” as Bastiat called it. - JZ, 4.5.08, 21.7.12. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

REGULATIONS: The trouble with government regulation of the market is that it prohibits capitalistic acts between consenting adults.” – Prof. Robert Motick. – CONSENT, CAPITALISM, ADULTHOOD, FREEDOM, RIGHTS

REGULATIONS: Warning: All goods and services under government regulation are “artificially colored and flavored”, i.e., more or less spoiled or poisoned. Beware! – JZ, 11.7.78. – The most wrongful and harmful regulatory body in each country is, probably, its central bank. – Look at the annual inflation rate over the last few decades, of the forced and exclusive currency it was established to “stabilize” and guarantee. - JZ, 4.5.08.

REICHERT, WILLIAM O., Natural Right in the Political Philosophy of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 15pp, in THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES, IV/1, Winter 1980, JZL. Page 78/79: "When Proudhon wrote that "Association is Justice," he put himself totally outside the bourgeois conception of authority and law laid upon modern society by Hobbes and Locke, neither of whom was capable of visualizing any legal reality outside the jurisdiction of the state. Unlike both Hobbes and Locke, who maintained that justice is impossible where there is no functioning legal establishment to give right credibility, Proudhon insisted that the proper basis of law is not the authority of a political constitution or even the will of a sovereign majority but the essential social norms that are developed over time by social groups. The norms created by any particular group may ultimately take the form of statutes or merely remain widely accepted rules of conduct upheld by virtue of public understanding, but in either case the one thing essential to law is that the norms that underlie it should express the fundamental will of people organized within voluntary relationships which they create in the course of living their lives. - In arguing that 'Justice is Association', Proudhon meant to establish the principle that 'justice always exists objectively in the nature of the relationship' that individuals voluntarily enter. From this it follows that his mutualist theory was pluralistic, justice and law being defined over and over again in the daily activity of society as it broke down into functioning associations of one kind or another operating according to the social principle of reciprocity. And since individuals create justice by virtue of their own actions in these reciprocal relationships, according to Proudhon, it is beyond the jurisdiction of any court or governmental agency to decree what justice is; only the individual, answering to the court of his own conscience or group norms, can find himself guilty of injustice, or, conversely, determine what is right social conduct. Proudhon, obviously, was a thoroughgoing pluralist in his thinking about law, as all anarchists basically must be. Unfortunately, throughout history all too many who have thought of themselves as legal pluralists, lacking Proudhons' willingness to go straight to the roots of the political problem, have been unwilling to divest the state of its monopoly of force..." – JUSTICE, ASSOCIATIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, FREE ENTERPRISE OF DIVERSE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SYSTEMS, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PROUDHON, RECIPROCITY, MUTUALISM, TOLERANCE, PLURALISM, STATE, TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLISM


REITH, EDWARD B.: On Panarchy, 6, in PEACE PLANS No. 505.

REITH, GERRY: ON PANARCHY, 22, 43, 60, in PEACE PLANS No. 505. -- 117, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507. -- In ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870.

RELATED TERMS & IDEAS, ARGUMENTS, PROVERBS, SAYINGS, QUOTES, OPINIONS ON EXTRATERRITORIALITY, GEOGRAPHICAL SECESSIONISM, MINI-TERRITORIES, A-TERRITORIALITY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, NON-TERRITORIAL DECENTRALIZATION, DECENTRALIZATION, PANARCHISTIC TOLERANCE & SELF-GOVERNMENT, TRIBALISM ETC: Some related terms do not express the personal law aspects of panarchism but amount merely to autonomy for mini-territories or geographical secessionism and autonomy: Extraterritoriality of embassies, decentralization of the conventional type, geographical and with limited autonomy, tribalism with native land claims, fragmentation, foreign concessions. - Numerous old and new freedom proverbs, slogans and ideals have already anticipated this freedom framework and opportunity for all. E.g.: "Don't fence me in!" - “abdication”, not only for rulers but also for voters and subjects! “alternative institutions", “anarchism", “anarcho-capitalism” (Benjamin Marks, still misunderstanding the differences, for panarchism includes the opposites to anarchism and to capitalism as well – for their volunteers! – J.Z., 21.7.12.) -“associationism”, “autarchy" (in Robert LeFevre's meaning), “autonomy", “capitalism", “choice among governments and societies, for individuals”, “collectivism", (for volunteers only!) - “Competing Social Contract Package Deals”, “competition in every sphere", “consumer sovereignty", “contractarianism”,“cooperation, spontaneous or by contract, in every sphere", “decentralization, exterritorial", “Don't fence me in!", “enfranchisement" in every respect, not just for a territorial and collectivist vote, “Equal liberty for all" (*), “Equal rights for all" (*), “experimental freedom", “exterritorial associationism”, “Follow your own drummer! – or “… dream". “Free choice in everything", “free societies", “freedom of action", “freedom of association", “freedom of choice”, “freedom to dissociate oneself", “household Government” -  (Chaitlin), “I did it my way!"  “Il faut cultiver notre jardin.” (Voltaire) -“Neither anvil nor hammer.” “independence",  “individual secessionism”, “individual sovereignty", “individualism", “intentional communities", “liberation", “libertarianism", “meta utopia” (Nozick) - “minority autonomy",   “mutual convenience relationships" vs. "single convenience relationships" (Don Werkheiser) - “mutualism", “Neither anvil nor hammer.” Neither master nor slave.” “Neither rule nor be ruled. - “Neither victims nor executioners." (Albert Camus, essay title.) - “No one is good enough to rule any other man without his consent." - “No privileges or monopolies for anyone!” (*) -  “one-man revolutions", “opting out", “optional law” (Rex Gordon), “personal law”, “radicalism", “release all creative energies.” – (Leonard E. Read.) - “resigning one's commissions” – office or ending subordination. - “self-control", “self-determination" (*), “self-discipline", “self-enactment” (Oakshott). - “self-government" -  “Self-Help in Every Sphere!”, “self-management", “self-ownership”,“self-realization”, “socialism" (Ca. 600 DIFFERENT definitions, including e.g voluntary socialism and cooperative socialism, which can be quite capitalistic!), “spontaneous cooperation”, “To each his own!" (the old Latin definition of justice: "Suum cuique!". – “tolerance", “tribalism”, “utopias" for volunteers, “voluntarism", “voluntary government”, “voluntaryism" -  “We must create sanctuaries for social imagination." (Alvin Toffler, Future Shock, 1970, quoted by M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p. 331.) - (*) Unless the members of communities or societies agree upon something different for their own affairs. – This applies also to some of the other slogans. - JZ, 29.1.12, 21.7.12. - See also under NAMES, TERMS, DEFINITIONS

RELEASE ALL CREATIVE ENERGIES: A free society releases the energies and abilities of people to pursue their own objectives. … Freedom means diversity but also mobility. It preserves the opportunity for today's disadvantaged to become tomorrow's privileged and, in the process, enables almost everyone, from top to bottom, to enjoy a fuller and richer life." - Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose. – He, like Leonard E. Read with his slogan “Release all creative energies!” and most other libertarians so far, thought only of a single free society under a limited government, not of a panarchistic free competition between diverse societies, from free to un-free ones, all valid only for their voluntary members. – JZ, 29.3.09. - ECONOMIC FREEDOM, DIVERSITY, UPWARD MOBILITY, OPPORTUNITIES, FROM RAGS TO RICHES, SELF-HELP FOR THE POOR, FREE SOCIETY, LAISSEZ FAIRE, FREE MARKET & TERRITORIALISM WITH ITS UN-FREE MARKET, PANARCHISM

RELEASE OF CREATIVE ENERGIES: Panarchism has the largest potential to unleash the maximum of just, reasonable, peaceful, defensive, productive, decentralist, centralist, federalist and liberating, talents, energies, ideas, initiatives, forces and organizations, systems and processes, in all countries, for the benefit of volunteers and against the wrongful rule and aggressive intentions of any authoritarian, despotic, tyrannical and totalitarian regime. It could rapidly cause widespread dissatisfaction, desertion, resistance and armed uprisings - among the armed forces of dictators and could thus prevent wars, civil wars, revolutions, patches and terrorism. If closely examined and discussed from all angles, we would come to adopt it very soon and to wonder why we had not done this long ago. No other democratic or republican or revolutionary and reform model, framework or program comes even close to it. It is the consistent culmination of all rightful and voluntary reform and liberation efforts and ensures their continuance, in accordance with human nature and its potential. - JZ, 23.9.91. 13.1.93. - How intelligent are "intelligence services" and political scientists when they haven't found out such basic truths as yet? - They tend to look only where such intelligence cannot be found. E.g. in the secrets of territorial governments, not in the open files of libertarians. - JZ, 9.9.04. – Q.

RELEASE RATHER THAN DOMINATE: Bookchin aptly sums up the major thrust of the evolutionary theory initially formulated by Kropotkin when he writes: “The ecologist, insofar as he is more than a technician, tends to reject the notion of ‘power over nature’. He speaks, instead, of ‘steering’ his way through an ecological situation, of managing rather than recreating an ecosystem. The anarchist, in turn, speaks in terms of social spontaneity, of releasing the potentialities of people. Both, in their own way, regard authority as inhibitory, as a weight limiting the creative potential of a natural and social situation. Their object is not to rule a domain, but to release it.” – As the above makes clear, anarchism draws its inspiration not from the modern world of science but from the idea of nature as it has always been interpreted during the previous periods of enlightened thought. …” - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.553. - PANARCHISM, RULE, DOMAIN, FREE EXPERIMENTATION, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARISM, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, ANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, LIBERATION. – Compare: Leonard E. Read’s “Release all creative energies!”

RELEASE YOURSELF: the whole [American] Revolution turned upon, asserted, and, in theory, established the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he had lived. And this principle was asserted … as a universal right of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances. …” - Lysander Spooner, No Treason. - LEAVE, WITHDRAW, OPT OUT, SECEDE, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, REVOLUTION


RELIGION: All religions united with government are more or less inimical to liberty. All separated from government, are compatible with liberty.” - Henry Clay, House of Representatives, March 24, 1818. - There are still intolerant religions and sects, as well as intolerant ideological faiths, believing in human sacrifices. The non-religious mis-education establishment of States does also sacrifice minds, just like the military territorial establishment and the existence of territorial warfare States sacrifices human minds and bodies. All existing governments must become reduced to competing churches, sects or communities - regardless of their faiths, religious or otherwise and full "religious" freedom must be realized for all who want to compete with them via alternative institutions and communities under personal laws. - JZ, 13.10.02. - & GOVERNMENT VS. LIBERTY, PANARCHISM, CHOICE, COMPETITION

RELIGION: Any “Holy Book” becomes unholy when it makes people fight or oppress each other. Which one hasn’t? – JZ, 13.8.03. - BIBLE, HOLY BOOKS, WAR, CIVIL WAR, INTOLERANCE, Q.

RELIGION: Communism and Nazism should have taught us that some religions are worse than others and that no particular religion is morally superior to religious and general tolerance for all tolerant actions. – JZ, 10.4.94, 10.5.08, 21.7.12. – TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM

RELIGION: Each man is allowed to choose freely the path that will lead him to heaven, just as the law recognizes each citizen’s right to choose his own government.” – Tocqueville, quoted in THE FREEMAN, July 77, p.430. – T. here presupposed the existence of a religious heaven and also that the current right to a “free” vote, usually only one among millions, gives him already the panarchist right to choose his own government, his preferred personal law system, while he really has only one territorial and collectivist vote among all too many others. He should be free to choose a government – and not only a government but, instead, a non-governmental society and personal law system for himself, just like he chooses an insurance contract, doctor, green-grocer, lawyer, masseur, baker, butcher, architect or plumber for himself. – JZ, 13.5.08, 21.7.12. – PANARCHISM, VOTING, FREE CHOICE

RELIGION: Every sect is a moral check on its neighbor. Competition is as wholesome in religion as in commerce.” – W. S. Landor, Imaginary Conversations, I, 1824. – It would be nice if all religions merely peacefully competed with each other. But some members of some religions do still murder members of other faiths. Even some atheists have been murderous towards some religious people. The best lesson all religions, between them, can give us, is that of their mutual tolerance, wherever and whenever it exists. – That kind of tolerance should be applied in every sphere, especially in the political, economic and social spheres. – JZ, 5.7.86, 13.5.08. – Towards all sufficiently tolerant people and groups, not towards criminals and aggressors, who tend to have more involuntary victims than voluntary ones. – JZ, 21.7.12. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE

RELIGION: I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” - Thomas Jefferson. - The same rule should apply to the political, economic and social faiths, schools of thoughts, ideologies, movements and sects. - JZ, 13.10.02, 21.7.12. - & PANARCHISM

RELIGION: I am opposed to any religion, church or sect to the extent that it limits the free development of any individual’s creative potential, however limited that potential may be. In religious terms: I want people to be free to grow as “children of God” to whatever maturity they can attain and not be merely his worshippers, slaves or wards forever. – JZ, 9.10.88.

RELIGION: If governments had ever tried to dominate physical and mathematical opinions of the public as much as political and religious views, then we would have wars for and against differential calculus as we had for the Holy Trinity of God."- Franz von Bader. - INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIALISM

RELIGION: If politics is not right you cannot practice your religion.” - Source? - I would just add "fully" behind "cannot", to turn it more clearly into a panarchist saying. - JZ 28.2.85. – If your morality or ethics is incomplete then you can neither freely practise your preferred religion nor the government or non-governmental system, economic or social system of your choice, together with like-minded people, under full exterritorial autonomy or personal law. – J.Z., 21.7.12. - PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, TOLERANCE FOR TOLERANT ACTIONS, ETHICS, MORALITY,  INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

RELIGION: If you have two religions in your land, the two will cut each other’s throats; but if you have thirty religions, they will dwell in peace.” – Voltaire. - If you have just one territorial government then various factions or parties will be at each other's throats. But if each becomes exterritorially autonomous, with all its volunteers, then they will tend to live in peace. - JZ, 24. 11. 06. - If you have only two major parties or factions they will always be too close to mutual despotism, civil war and revolutions. But if you have 30 parties and all of them strive only for exterritorial autonomy and personal laws for their members and voters, then you can have peace, soon, and as much in freedom and rights as each group of volunteers wants for itself. – JZ, 3.1.08. - & PANARCHISM, PEACE, TOLERANCE, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, HARMONY BETWEEN INDEPENDENT COMMUNITIES

RELIGION: Liberty's chief foe is theology.” - Charles Bradlaugh. - Does it tax and regulate me when I am not a member of a church or sect and do not believe in God at all? Is it as oppressive and exploitative to me now as is the territorial State? Am I not largely free to ignore it but not free to ignore the State? - JZ, 24.11.02. - CHURCHES, THEOLOGY & LIBERTY, DIS., RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, Q.

RELIGION: Power is the grim idol that the world adores.” – W. Hazlitt. – Don’t forget that there are many who do hate it – but they are not yet free to exterritorially opt out from under it. – JZ, 21.7.12. – DIS., POWER, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM

RELIGION: Religion does not promote self-thinking and self-responsibility. It lets “God” be a good man, as a German proverb has it and if he isn’t then it merely tries, through prayer, to turn him into a good person in a particular case. – That is like praying against pests, earthquakes, floods, storms, droughts and frosts, which presumes that we, supposedly children of God, do also have divine powers to stop such events. – The persistent failure of prayers to influence events seems never to prevent them among the true believers, just like the persistent failures of territorial State measures never seems to prevent their continuance among the territorial statists over all their opponents. - JZ, 29.3.09, 21.7.12.

RELIGION: Religion is not knowledge of what its believers pretend to know but only, at best, the confession of a faith, a belief in its dogmas, rituals and wrongful assumptions. – But in spite of all its faults, it deserves to be tolerated, as long as it does not interfere with the faiths of other religions or with the lives of non-religious people. – Mutual tolerance is the greatest lesson, which all religions have to provide to mankind, through their adoption, finally, and almost universally, after all to many violent struggles, for all too many centuries, of religious tolerance or religious freedom. And yet most religious as well as non-religious people seem to be unable to apply the principles and practices of religious tolerance to the political, social and economic spheres, although this is the greatest service they could provide to man. - JZ, 29.3.98, 9.5.08. – Nor are most “political scientists” able or willing to learn from this great example. – JZ, 20.10.08. – In all too many respects we still live in a “dark age”. – JZ, 21.7.12.

RELIGION: Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand.” - Frederick II, The Great (1712-1784), Letters to Voltaire, July 7, 1737. – The mob does not understand libertarianism and panarchism and it certainly does not adore either. – But it does know the power of territorialism, although it does not clearly understand the wrongful, harmful and deadly consequences of territorialism, of its powers, leaders, representatives and, therefore, majorities still adore or at least elect them, as supposedly the lesser evils. - JZ, 28.3.09, 20.2.11. - & MOBS, DIS., PEOPLE, MAN, PANARCHISM, LIBERTARIANISM, VOTING, REPRESENTATIVES

RELIGION: Religions are such stuff as dreams are made of.” – H. G. Wells, The Happy Turning, 1946. – Or nightmares! One nightmare that Wells dreamt up was an all-powerful and State socialistic world State! – His kind of world State would have been suitable only for his kind of world statists, all volunteers. – JZ, 13.5.08. – Rather, religions are made up out of mere dreams. Nothing is hard-wired, material and factual about them. They are as substantial as their souls, spirits, holy spirits, gods, devils and angels. Essentially, they are only fairy tales and fantasies for adults, made up by vested interest groups of priests, prophets, gurus, pretended sons of gods etc., all with a very large superiority complex – while their believers are instilled with an inferiority complex so that they can be easily exploited buy their supposed superiors. – JZ, 28.1.12. – Their ethics are also all too flawed, limited and incomplete. – JZ, 21.7.12. - DIS.

RELIGION: Religions, like the political mobs promise heaven or paradise, charge highly for this “service”, threaten with eternal hell-fire but deliver only misery or even hell on Earth. Nevertheless, the priests and politicians are still all too much tolerated and well paid. At least the politicians, too, should be confined to their own types of volunteers as their only victims. – JZ, 29.3.09. - POLITICIANS, PROMISES, HEAVEN, HELL, POLITICAL AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM & TOLERANCE

RELIGION: religious stands for scrupulous not trifling, conscientiousness. The opposite of religion thus would be negligence, carelessness, indifference, laxity.” - J. O. Y'Gasset, Concord and Liberty, p.22. – Just like the statists, the religious people deny any qualities to their opponents and pretend that they have monopolized goodness and welfare options. – In other words, almost all claim: We are the good guys! Our opponents are the bad guys! – But e.g., how many religious people and how many territorial statists know enough of e.g. sound economics and of individual rights and liberties – and act accordingly? – JZ, 29.3.09 - TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLISM, STATISM, GOODNESS, ATHEISM, ANARCHISM

RELIGION: The attitude that regards entanglement with religion as something akin to entanglement with an infectious disease must be confronted broadly and directly.” – William J. Bennett, 1843 -, in NEW YORK TIMES, 8 August 1985. – Underlined by me. The best confrontation would be the attempt to wipe both of them out, via sufficient enlightenment. – JZ, 10.9.07. – At least the number of atheists is very slowly creeping up, with this development being stretched over centuries and this slow development is accompanied the growth of a new secular religious, namely that of territorial statism, which is not a sufficient improvement upon the older religions and, at least in some respects, even worse than they were and are. – Only exterritorial experimental freedom among volunteers has a chance to end the territorial statist religion – and this relatively fast. - JZ, 29.3.09, 21.7.12. - AN INFECTIOUS DISEASE, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

RELIGION: The best that e.g. the Christian religions could teach, after a long, cruel and bloody history of intolerance, wars, civil wars and repression, namely tolerance for tolerant actions, individual responsibility vs. collective responsibility, tyrannicide vs. indiscriminate air raids and masses of conscript armies slaughtering each other, justice rather than love, independence rather than statism, economics rather than charity, it does not teach! To that extent it is part of the problem rather than the solution. But then the same could be said on all territorialist political parties and most political movements and ideologies. - JZ, 27.8.02, 30.10.02, 21.7.12. - CHURCHES, CHRISTIANITY

RELIGION: The church of my choice is the free, open world.” - Philip K. Dick, Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said, p.115. – I consider all churches to be largely merely a waste of good building sites and building materials. But since they are there, there should be better usages for them than worship of a non-existing being by fools. – However even fools have the right to practice their foolishness among themselves, at their own expense and risk. - JZ, 229.3.09. – CHURCHES, PANARCHISM

RELIGION: The imaginary flowers of religion adorn man's chains. Man must throw off the flowers, and also the chains.” - Karl Marx, The Wisdom of Karl Marx, Simon Emler, editor, 1948. – Marx was not wise enough to recognize the real chains, those upon free exchange and voluntary associations in every sphere although e.g. the bourgeois and their rising capitalism had already provided many good examples. He only imagined chains in the sphere of production and wanted to worsen the existing situation by establishing a super-monopoly: State socialism, thereby preparing a new Dark Age with a new kind of mass murderous Inquisition. Moreover, he wanted to worsen the exchange-media and value standard situation as well, by establishing central banks for the issue of monopoly money with legal tender power! – JZ, 24.9.08, 20.2.11. – At the time of Marx many of the chains imposed by religions were already cast off. His ideology established new territorial statist chains and prosecutions, often much worse and committing even more mass-murders than religions had caused. – JZ, 29.3.09, 21.7.12.

RELIGION: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” - Thomas Jefferson (1781) – How effective are even the best territorial governments in preventing crimes with victims -or in capturing, punishing or reforming such offenders? – One can certainly be too optimistic about territorial governments, especially after thousands of years of disappointments with them. - JZ, 27.12.07. - POWER & GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIAL STATISM, DIS., RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, GODS, ATHEISM

RELIGION: The moment religion organizes into a specific creed it becomes a political force. From Moses down to Brigham Young, every creed-founder has been a State-builder.” - Daniel Deleon (1852-1914), The Vatican in Politics (1891). – But at least most of them, after all too many bloody conflicts, have finally learnt to build exterritorially only, exclusively for their own volunteers. – JZ, 29.3.09. - & POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, STATISM, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE

RELIGION: THE SUN-HERALD Feb. 6 05 reported on page 63 under "Farewell to the Rabbi of Tolerance" - active in inter-faith relationships, Raymond Apple, just retired, that he stated: "You see there are some people who have just enough religion to hate others, but not enough religion to love others." - One could perhaps generalize this statement into something: There are some people who have just enough conviction to hate others with other convictions but not enough conviction to become tolerant and just towards them. – JZ, n.d. - Indiscriminate love for everyone is as absurd and wrong as indiscriminate hate for everyone. – JZ, 29.3.09. LOVE, HATE & TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE, PANARCHISM

RELIGION: There’s never been anything, however absurd, that countless people weren’t prepared to believe, often so passionately that they’d fight to the death rather than abandon their illusions. To me, that’s a good operational definition of insanity.” - Arthur C. Clarke, 3001. The Final Odyssey, HarperCollins Publishers, 1979, p.44 - - The best cure is, let them have it, at their own expense and risk. Their irrationalities will ultimately be self-defeating. And if they murder only each other – good riddance. We end up with a better gene pool. – One should certainly be free to secede from such people, their votes, their laws, their institutions etc. – It is also a kind of insanity to try to associate “democratically” with such people or to try convert them to a conventional representative or direct democracy or to any other ideal, especially an anarchistic one or a libertarian one. - JZ, 28.9.07. - BELIEF, FAITH, FUNDAMENTALISM, ILLUSIONS, INSANITY, PANARCHISM

RELIGION: This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." - John Adams, letter to Jefferson. – And no intolerant and territorialist ideologies! - JZ, 11.2.02. – Belief in genuine individual rights and liberties, in justice and progress, in man, in the long run, is also a kind of religion and it could lead us into a much better world, while the religion of territorial statism leads us into a worse one or to the end of mankind and most other higher mammals. – JZ, 5.1.08. - Economic, political and social errors and prejudices are all too popular even among atheists, rationalists and humanists. – Religious tolerance, where realized, has largely rendered religions harmless. Now the same ought to be achieved for the various faiths in political, economic and social systems. - JZ, 23.1.08. – TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, IDEOLOGIES, PARTIES, MOVEMENTS, FACTIONS

RELIGION: where mental aberrations like religion and liberalism are given serious respect, …” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001,, p.73. – At least we ought to respect the rights of these retards, fools or traditionalists, etc. the right to practise their errors and mistakes at their own expense and risk among themselves, by letting them secede or achieving our secession from them. – JZ, 27.9.07. - & MODERN LIBERALISM

RELIGION: Whether you got religion or statism on your mind, they both prevent you from thinking and acting quite rightfully and rationally and exploring and using all your self-help options. – JZ, 30.7.03, 23.10.07. - & STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, SELF-HELP, VOLUNTARISM

RELIGION: Which religion has sufficiently stood up against the accumulation and keeping in readiness of hundreds to thousands mass murder devices in the hands of territorial governments? – Have they excommunicated even one of these supposedly great leaders? - JZ, 10.11.07. - MORALITY & NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, Q.

RELIGION: Why is it that religion teaches tolerance but practises intolerance?” – Grey Rollins, Ashes to Ashes, in ANALOG, 10/98, p. 172? 122? - Q. – We should not ignore, however, the extent to which most religious people have become tolerant, in most countries. – The present believers should not be blamed for the religious intolerance of their ancestors. – We should also keep in mind how many of us are still territorially intolerant when it comes to political, social and economic systems. - JZ, 10.5.08.

RELIGION: Without religions, especially that of statism, we would be very much better off. - 5.4.04. - & STATISM

RELIGIONS & PANARCHISM: Since even the questions of all religions have so far been no further "settled" than can they can be, namely through a wide-spread agreement upon religious liberty or tolerance (alas, not yet universally accepted even now, after being introduced hundreds of years ago), why should we expect a widespread agreement upon political, economic, social and ideological questions upon any other basis than tolerance, freedom of action for all, free experiments for all or exterritorial autonomy for all or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams? - JZ Dec. 92. - Even Genghis Khan practised more religious tolerance than do all too many people of our time. See: Harold Lamb, Genghis Khan, The Conqueror, 1927 ff. - JZ, 9.12.03. – However, his politics was a radical version of modern territorialism: Submit or become wiped out! – Up to 50 million mass murder victims have been ascribed to his armed forces. – J.Z., 21.7.12.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE & PANARCHISM: Religious tolerance remains the largest analogy and precedent for the same kind of tolerance in the political, social and economic spheres. Alas, priests imagining to have monopolized morality and proper living for human beings have almost totally ignored this precedent, set by themselves and have not applied it in these spheres, still monopolized by territorial governments. Neither have political "scientists", as a rule! - JZ, 20.9.04. - Even religious tolerance is still a primary requirement in all too many countries today, not to speak of the equivalent political, economic and social tolerance. - JZ, 17.1.05.


RELIGIOUS LIBERTY & PANARCHISM: Let people be free to choose, individually, their own government as they are now free, in many to most countries, to choose their own church or sect or atheistic etc. alternatives to them. – JZ, 8.6.97, 10.1.99, 21.7.12.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AS A MODEL: Most of the somewhat enlightened people are anarchists or panarchists in the sphere of religion. (I do concede the existence of some religious anarchists and libertarians and do respect some of them.) If they were similarly enlightened on their political, social and economic options, then they would become anarchists or panarchists in this sphere as well, as they already are, to a large extent, in their private life, e.g. in making ordinary individual consumer decision-making for themselves. – JZ, 15.1.98, 11.1.99, 9.9.04.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: So far not even religious liberty or religious tolerance is fully recognized everywhere, although it has made its peaceful case in many countries already for centuries. - E.g., in Ireland we still have a limited religious war, because both sides are unwilling to sufficiently tolerate the other side and always want territorial privileges for their own over members of the other side. Both still managed to combine religious intolerance with political intolerance and have not learnt to become tolerant towards different economic and social systems, either. - This situation is even worse e.g. in countries and among people like the territorialist Israelis or Zionists and the various territorialist Palestinians and other Arabs or Muslims. This in spite of the fact that both have also a long and honorable tradition of exterritorial autonomy, although is was never widely and consistently enough applied in every respect and quite secure. [Israelis grant religious freedom but not exterritorial autonomy. Palestinians are not prepared to grant either but do claim a territorial monopoly for themselves. - JZ, 29.9.11.] However, once they are sincerely offered, as an alternative, full exterritorial autonomy, have sufficient contemplated and discussed it and then realized it for themselves as well as for all those, who disagree with them, then and only then will their mutual antagonism become reduced to quite bearable proportions, if it will not disappear, gradually, altogether. They would then, certainly, no longer have any justification, excuse or moral motive for terrorist acts against each other. The wind would be taken out of the sails of their mutual hatreds and suspicions. They would, rather, become permanently becalmed and more or less stuck only on the inherent problems involved in their own ideas, institutions, systems, convictions and faiths, without any ready scapegoats available for them – except themselves, but always with the individual option to give up trying to make flawed or bad ideas and hypotheses or dogmas work well enough and thus make a new start for themselves, alone or with like-minded people. - JZ, Dec. 04, 22.7.12. - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, TOLERANCE, IRAQ, IRAN, AFGHANISTAN, ISRAEL, PALESTINE, JEWS, ARABS, JUDAISM, ISLAM, INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM

RELYEA, HAROLD C., Black Power & Parallel Institutions, Ideological and Theoretical Considerations, in JOURNAL OF HUMAN RELATIONS, Second Quarter, 1969, Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio, pp. 208-223, bibl. 221-223.  See also the introduction, p.VI/VII.

REMAKING OTHERS? Ought man to expend his life’s energies in trying to remake others in his own likeness; that is, become the ultimate arbiter of humanity?” – Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.36. - Superiority, savior or God complex, instead of merely trying to be a pioneer, in one way or the other, if one can. - It should remain up to others to either accept or reject any innovation for themselves. - JZ, 21.2.11. - REFORMS, DOMINATION, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CHANGING OTHERS, RULE, CREATIVITY, SELF-RULE, SELF-DETERMINATION, POWER, SUPREMACY, GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL

REMEDIES: To do nothing is sometimes a good remedy.” - Hippocrates, Aphorisms, ca. 400 B.C. – It means e.g. letting nature or the free market provide the healing process. – However, should we do nothing about e.g. the nuclear war threat, mass unemployment, inflation, despotisms and tyrannies? - Have we, as yet, liberated the free market or individual choice, sufficiently, in all spheres, so that they could work effectively towards genuine solutions? - The advice is only true regarding further wrongful and irrational meddling, that of territorialism. - JZ, 4.5.08, 21.2.11.  All of the older and legalized governmental meddling should be ended as well, in the long run, starting with the secession of a few volunteers, removing them within their personal law societies, communities and governance systems and setting thus light-tower examples for all others to follow, when they are ready for them. J.Z., 22.7.12. – LAISSEZ-FAIRE, PIONEERING UNDER PERSONAL LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

REMEMBRANCE DAY: What did they really die for? They did not really know. Do we? Even today quite rightful war- and peace aims have not yet been publicly declared for any war. Perhaps we should rather celebrate the deserters than the masses of all too willing victims of these mutual slaughter campaigns, usually undertaken by governments under all kinds of false pretences and for the wrong reasons or motives? At the very least we should now determine what are rightful war- and peace aims and only commit ourselves to them. That alone could already greatly reduce the risk of war. Add to that e.g. conscription and inflation powers of governments, their power to take up public debts, their decision-making power on war and peace and their territorial monopoly power, all of these points and many others still all too little questioned and changed. – JZ, 11.11.93, 10.5.08 – As one old article in THE FREEMAN suggested: Perhaps we should start with demunicipalizing the garbage service. From that first step we might then proceed, slowly or even fast, to do away with all of the other garbage types of “public services”, most of them on a compulsory, collectivistic, monopolistic, State socialistic and territorial and thus quite wrongful basis and also wrongly “financed” by tribute levies. – J.Z., 22.7.12. - WAR AIMS, PRIVATIZATION, DENATIONALIZATION, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

REMNANT: Ah”, the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there, that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.” – Albert Jay Nock, quoted in Leonard E. Read’s compilation: The Free Man’s Almanac, for July 25. - Has the Remnant been sufficiently interconnected and informed by the Internet, as yet? – JZ, 4.5.08. – In another version, by Edmund Opitz, on Nock in the INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, Winter 75: “Isaiah, discouraged, came to the Lord and asked for a new assignment. “You don’t get the point”, the Lord told Isaiah: “there is a Remnant out there. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They don’t know each other, and they won’t make themselves known to you. But it is they who keep things from going completely to pot, and it is the Remnant who will build society afresh after the collapse. They are listening to you, Isaiah, and your job is to minister to the Remnant.” This was also Nock’s job, as he himself conceived it.” - I hold that this remnant ought to get sufficiently organized and tackle the job of enlightenment and the achievement of experimental freedom for volunteers, in a process that systematically, but voluntarily and market-like, uses the division of labor between the few, spread all over the world, to tackle the numerous large jobs that are involved in this effort. - JZ, 21.2.11. – Q., THE REMNANT, SUFFICIENT COLLABORATION & DIVISION OF LABOR AMONG LIBERTARIANS

REMNANT: Are there minds ready for this kind of truth? Nock believed that every society has such minds else it would fall apart. (*) Every society is held together by a select few – men and women who have the force of intellect to discern the rules upon which social life is contingent, and the force of character to exemplify those rules in their own living. (**) These were Nock’s chosen people. The Remnant. All else is mass man.” – Edmund Opitz, on Nock, in INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW, Winter 75. - Let us first properly assemble the significant truths, ideas, facts, platforms, principles, declarations etc. and sufficiently publish, discuss and defend them as well as they should be – then the minds interested in them will gather, as they should, around such a free market for ideas and truths. Now they would all fit into a HD the size of a book and not very much more expensive. Can we afford to remain without such a reference tool? – (*) Perhaps the idea behind the title “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand? – (**) Are they really so influential, as yet? - JZ - 4.5.08 - So far, under territorialism, they had all too little influence, while the most ignorant and prejudiced had all too much. - JZ, 21.2.11. - IDEAS ARCHIVE, LIBERTARIAN ELECTRONIC LIBRARY & ENCYCLOPEDIA, BIBLIOGRAPHY, ABSTRACTS & REVIEW COMPILATIONS, DIRECTORIES, YEARBOOKS, ELECTRONIC ARGUMENT MAPS ETC.

REMNANT: Finally, there are those who exemplify the opposite characteristics: the virtues of thinking for self, behaving as men instead of gods, and adhering to purpose against all odds. The Remnant!” – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.154. – Which kinds of tools or references has the Remnant still not provided for itself? I believe that a complete list would be rather long. – JZ, 4.5.08. - INDIVIDUALS, ENLIGHTENMENT, IDEAS, SELF-THINKING, GENUINELY CULTURAL REVOLUTION, ENLIGHTENMENT, “NEW DRAFT”

REMORSE: Remorse: Is the gate to ethics, but will carry one no further.” – Dagobert D. Runes, A Dictionary of Thought. – How often could it be prevented, if a complete declaration of all individual rights and liberties had already been compiled, published and sufficiently explained and discussed? –Legislation by territorial governments and governmental bills of rights are not a sufficient substitute for such an instrument for enlightenment. – JZ, 14.5.08. - Individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers as well as full monetary and financial freedom, to mention only some important liberties, are not yet in any State constitution or Bill of Rights! - JZ, 21.2.11. - CONSCIENCE, MORALITY, RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, HUMAN RIGHTS, ETHICS, REGRETS, APOLOGIES, REPENTANCE, SAYING SORRY, SINS, CRIMES, OFFENCES, HOLY SCRIPTURES, BIBLE, KORAN, DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, IDEAS ARCHIVE

REMOTENESS: Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them.” – Thomas Paine (1776) Remoteness is no longer a protection against protectionism or self-imposed blockades and other restrictions. Wrong ideas and IBMs know no borders, either and are easily adopted and maintained by unenlightened politicians and their voters and subjects. – Neither a whole continent nor a whole population can really be happy. That is a temporary state of mind and of conditions only for individuals. - Ignoring real dangers and dancing at the edge of an active volcano is rarely advisable. - Not even North America's population was ever quite free of the wrongs and irrationalities of territorialism. - JZ, n.d. & 21.2.11. – AMERICA, DISTANCES & MODERN TRANSPORT, IBMs & PLANTED NUKES, DIS., AMERICANISM

RENNER, KARL & BAUER, OTTO: Two leaders of Austrian social democracy, developed, around 1900, what has become known under the name of "personal or cultural autonomy". - Hint by AKZIN, BENJAMIN, State and Nation, p.142. - How far towards full exterritorial autonomy did their proposals go? - JZ, 2.9.04. – I have still not seen a bibliography and abstracts or reviews of their writings. Perhaps they are online by now and sufficiently appreciated or criticized, more than a century later? – JZ, 28.1.12. – From Google for Karl Renner & Otto Bauer, I got today 78,800 search results! Too many for me to explore on my own. – J.Z., 22.7.12.

RENT CONTROL: Rent controls – in Paris, New York City, London, or anywhere – offer the classic example of how political logic overwhelms economic rationalism. Great tracts of New York City have been transformed into smouldering, criminal-infested ruins by rent control. Study after massive study has arrayed the evidence in favor of abolition. Yet, in late 1976, the City Council of New York, with the concurrence of the Mayor, voted to extend rent control to 640,000 apartments for another three years to 1979. The political arithmetic of four renters to one landlord was irresistible.” – Patrick M. Boardman, Money, Employment and the Political Process, p.10. – It is just one of the many wrongs and idiocies of territorialism, which habitually ignores genuine individual rights and liberties. – JZ, 28.1.12. - VOTING, DEMOCRACY, MAJORITIES, TERRITORIALISM

RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP: See: Kukobaka vs. the Soviet System, 1p, 196, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PEACE PLANS 1,051. - See also: VOLUNTARYIST, THE, No. 49, April 1991, case of Clark Hanjian, 163, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PP 1,051. - INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM,.

REPEAL: progressive repeal of those socialistic laws which we already have.” – Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p.115. – Set individuals and minorities free to repeal them for themselves – by secession and the establishment of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers under their own personal law, however diverse. This could be done immediately, by peaceful one-person revolutions, many of them, and free the secessionists as far as they want to be freed. Then and thus the remaining State members, then all volunteers as well, at least for the time being, may continue to suffer under State-socialism as long as they want to. Only the territorialist compulsion, including the nuclear war powers, need to be repealed immediately or as soon as possible. Then for each and everyone the personal law State or non-governmental society or community of his or her choice would become possible, a daily option! – JZ, 5.5.08, 22.7.12. – INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

REPEAL: Repeal Govt.” – SLL Button No. 412. – Repeal territorial government only. For volunteers all their laws and institutions could remain as long as they are still wanted by them. But all present dissenters and secessionists could then immediately begin to do their own things for or to themselves, without any further freedom struggles or educational campaigns. It works in the religious sphere, in science and technology and in private life styles. It would work well here, too – and has for long periods in our past. The personal law tradition is not yet quite extinguished everywhere. But territorial conquest and domination have become dominant for all too long and now threaten us with a general holocaust via ABC mass murder devices in the hands of a few, some of them, obviously, less than quite sane or well enough enlightened. – Such decision-making monopoly power, which might lead to the end of mankind, must, naturally, be ended a.s.a.p., too. – Those targeted by such devices, i.e. almost everybody at least in cities, must take nuclear disarmament into their own hands. Territorial governments will not agree to it for the next decades or even centuries, either, if they “allow” mankind to live that long. - JZ, 5.5.08. – Some are of a mentality like Hitler, so that they would, if they could, rather destroy mankind than abdicate the powers to which they have become addicted. – J.Z., 22.7.12. DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, PERSONAL LAWS, DIS.

REPEAL: Repeal Laws! Help make the state an endangered species.” – SLL Button. – As a territorial beast of prey or Warfare State - it ought to be exterminated. However, if deprived of its territorial monopoly it would be a tamed beast, with voluntary subjects and supporters only. As such it could be continued at their risk and expense and as a deterrent examples for all others. – JZ, 5.5.08, 22.7.12. – LAWS, STATE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS TO REPLACE TERRITORIAL STATES

REPEAL: Rose Wilder Lane points the way:The great English reform movement of the 19th century consisted wholly in repealing laws.” – “The Discovery of Freedom”, p.239. - “What is needed in the United States is to repeal laws, not to pass new ones. Repeal laws that vest some men with authority over other men. This is not to set the clock back, it is to set it right.” – Wilhelm Roepke, A Humane Economy, Chicago, Ill., Henry Regnery Company, 1960, p.88. – Both quoted together in THE FREEMAN, 3/76. – Repealing "merely" all territorial impositions would set all peaceful dissenters free to become new pioneers and founding fathers. – JZ, 5.5.08. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSORY SUBORDINATION

REPEAL: Yet, try now to wipe it from the statute books!” – Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, July 73.  - “Evil begun, rarely undone!” … “in all things bad or evil, getting is quicker and easier than getting rid of them.” – August Hare. - Only when the evil has, as in Gresham’s Law, legal tender power, here in form of territorial monopoly power. – JZ, 3.11.92, 22.7.12. - That wrongful power is also present in territorial laws as opposed to personal laws and in compulsory State membership or subordination as opposed to voluntary membership and subordination or obedience. Both compulsions could be got rid of by a stroke of the pen - once sufficient enlightenment and morality is achieved in this sphere. Also by much easier revolutions than in any other way. (Individual and group secessions on a personal law basis only.) No one should be conscripted into a robber gang or a band of warriors, exploiters and oppressors. Rule over peaceful dissenters is wrong, not only in religion, in science, technology and in private affairs and regarding mere lifestyle decisions. Only territorialism has to be wiped off all statute books. For volunteers the multitude of statutes could stay in force, as long as they are willing to put up with them and individuals and dissenting groups remain free to opt out from under them. This is a formula for peaceful liberation and revolutionary efforts and most of them will be positive in their effects, either immediately or relatively soon, due to the self-responsibilities involved. – JZ, 5.5.08, 21.2.11.

REPETITIONS: Error is always repeated in practice. Thus the truth must always be repeated in words. – Goethe (*) – But one should also attempt to do so in ever improved and persuasive versions. – And all truths should also be permanently and suitably published together as well as all the best refutations of untruths. - JZ, 5.5.08. – (*) A more complete version runs: “The truth requires constant repetition, because error is being preached about us all the time. … In newspapers, encyclopedias, in schools and universities, everywhere error rides high and basks in the consciousness of having the majority on its side.” – All such verbal enlightenment efforts are still not effective enough when not accompanied by full experimental freedom, even for whole political, economic and social systems, always confined to volunteers and exterritorial autonomy. Then almost anyone would have a chance to become one of the "founding fathers" of a free society. Failures would be confined to the volunteers involved and would add to a growing and well-recorded experience of mankind. Natural scientists often have to undertake many different experiments before they finally discover or prove a new truth. - JZ, 21.2.11. - MAJORITY, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES, EDUCATION, PROPAGANDA, ENLIGHTENMENT, MINORITY AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

REPETITIVENESS: If something is right, rational and important - can it then be expresses in too many different ways? - Can one bore people too much with any important truths that are, unfortunately, not yet fully applied? - JZ, 19.8.11. - Once panarchies are widely practised and thus taken for granted, repetitive wordings, as I do offer here, will become, largely, superfluous. - JZ, 21.10.11. - BORING PEOPLE, SINGLE-TRACK-MINDEDNESS, , PROPAGANDA, DOGMATISM, Q.

REPRESENTATION & PANARCHISM:  Each and everyone can be “represented” only if while he remains free to secede, individually, and to associate exterritorially and autonomously with other such secessionists. The right to individually secede and voluntarily associate - for all non-criminal purposes - applies not only to tyrannies and dictatorships but also to more or less democratic, republican or “representative” systems and to the new panarchic communities as well. – JZ, 6.8.93, 14.1.99. - Only if one is free to opt out and does not do so can one be presumed to have given and maintained one’s consent to the actions of one’s "representatives". - JZ, 9.9.04, 22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION & POLITICIANS: Tom "Gumbert had also come to realize that elected political representatives couldn't represent all of the people in their district." - Watner: LeFevre, p.207. - Representation only by the choice of sovereign individuals or their groups of volunteers, all confined to their own affairs. – J.Z., n.d.

REPRESENTATION: 1860 was a memorable year for him. In that year he wrote for the WESTMINSTER an article on Parliamentary Reform, on the thesis that as fast as representation is extended, the sphere of government must be contracted.” – Henry Meulen, in THE INDIVIDUALIST, June 1977, on Herbert Spencer. – Establishing a limited territorial government does not contract government functions enough. They must become confined to volunteers only, under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. Otherwise they are still all too unlimited governments. – JZ, 5.5.08, 22.7.12. - In his early editions of "Social Statics" Spencer had a chapter on the right to ignore the State. Without explanation he dropped it in later editions. - Roy Childs acted similarly. - JZ, 21.2.11. - LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

REPRESENTATION: A congressman is more than an agent who attempts to carry out the views of his constituents. If he were no more than that, we probably could set up a nationwide computer system so every citizen could simply register his vote on each piece of legislation.” – Frank E. Evens, a US representative, in: Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress, p.17. – So while he cannot even prove to be a representative, he claims to be more than a representative, namely a decision-maker for others, even without their consent, i.e., their master. – However, his alternative suggestion is worth discussing. I hold it to be insufficient. Instead of each getting the power to cast his vote on the affairs of all others in a territory, he should only get a vote on which law, institution or political, economic and social system is to be applied to himself – leaving all others free to make their own choices in this respect. This works for all survival goods and services on a free market, it works for all other kinds of voluntary associations. It would work for laws, and political, economic and social systems as well, if these cease to be territorial monopolies. I know of no good and sufficient reason why they should constitute such monopolies. Personal law associations have a very long history. They existed long before we had any written laws. – JZ, 5.5.08. – DIRECT DEMOCRACY, REFERENDUM

REPRESENTATION: A little girl asked her mother if all fairy tales begin with “Once upon a time”. The mother replied that this year most of them begin with “If I am elected …” – T. F. D., READER’S DIGEST, 12 (?) 1972. – Even the "representatives" in parliaments cannot freely follow and realize their own ideals among those, who think like them. They are under party discipline from their own party and also under the numerous pressures and obstacles put up by all the opposing parties. Panarchism would, for the first time, bring also freedom of action and experimentation, together with their supporters, to individual politicians and to like-minded small groups of them. To that extent they are not only the territorial victimizers but also the victims of territorialism, just like the territorial voters are. Under panarchism they would even have something like a sinecure among their volunteers, as long as they still manage to have any. - JZ, 21.2.11. - JOKES, POLITICIANS, PROMISES, VOTING, ELECTION PROMISES. PANARCHIST OPPORTUNITIES FOR POLITICIANS.

REPRESENTATION: All workers should rather be free than merely “represented”. That applies to all other people as well. If anyone wants anyone else to represent him, let him do so individually – by e.g. establishing or joining a corresponding society of volunteers still believing in political representation. – 20.1.93, JZ, 12.5.08. – UNIONS, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP & SUBJUGATION

REPRESENTATION: And, are our representatives guided by basic principles in the handling of public affairs? Hardly. Their business is primarily to “keep their ears to the ground” – to ascertain which pressure group has the most to deliver and to make settlement accordingly. That is the conquest principle.” – Frank Chodorov, Fugitive Essays, p.307. - Under territorialism they really have no other option. Even among principles there is a great variety that do conflict with each other. Most to many of their colleagues believe in different sets of principles. Together these form a terrible mess, from which most minds have not yet liberated themselves. Politicians have, mostly, least opportunity, time and energy left to tackle this job. They are too busy with trying to get into power or to keep it. Most voters are not sufficiently interested or able to clarify their minds in this respect, either. - Not only the religions but also the official education systems and the remaining private education systems as well as the governmental bills of rights and numerous diverse philosophies have so far contributed only to a great confusion, numerous popular errors and mistakes - when it comes to the choice of sound principles. - JZ, 21.2.11, 22.7.12. - POLITICIANS & PRINCIPLES.

REPRESENTATION: As Proudhon wrote in a notebook, representative government is ‘a perpetual abuse of power for the profits of the reigning caste and the interests of the representatives, against the interests of the represented.” Universal suffrage is thus a real lottery, ensuring the triumph of mediocrity and the tyranny of the majority.” – Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.246. GOVERNMENT, VOTING, POWER, MAJORITIES, TERRITORIALISM

REPRESENTATION: At least one “representative of the rights of individuals and minorities” suggested Otto von Habsburg in “The Social Order of Tomorrow”, p.108, Oswald Wolff Publishers, London, 1958. – He should be part of every parliament and should be given veto power over new and old legislation. We probably haven’t even achieved that every minority would have at least one representative in parliament. But then parliaments would become excessively large – and most of these representatives would simply be outvoted in most cases, unless each of these representatives has a veto power over all laws as far as they affect the minority he represents. Self-management of the own affairs, under full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, all subject to individual choices and secessionism, can never be sufficiently substituted for by this kind of coercive territorial collectivism, called democratic and republican or representative but remaining, essentially, authoritarian, territorialist and, to that extent, even totalitarian. – JZ, 30.6.92, 15.5.08, 22.7.12. – PARLIAMENT, DEMOCRACY, VETO ON RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, LAWS

REPRESENTATION: Bruno Leoni made the point lucidly when he wrote: “The more numerous the people are whom one tries to ‘represent’ through the legislative process and the more numerous the matters in which one tries to represent them, the less the word ‘representation’ has a meaning referable to the actual will of actual people, other than the persons named as their ‘representatives’ … (*) The inescapable conclusion is that in order to restore to the word ‘representation’ its original, reasonable meaning (**), there should be a drastic reduction either in the number of those ‘represented’ or in the number of matters in which they are allegedly represented, or both.” – G. Sartori, Liberty and Law, on Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law, p.18/19. – Neither of them seems to have considered communities of volunteers only, under personal laws. They took territorialism and its collective and coercive decision-making for granted and just wanted to reduce this evil somewhat. – JZ, 5.5.08. - (*) If one considers the splits of opinion even in small families and friendship circles and on relatively few decisions on private activities, then the delusions of territorial representation of thousands of people by one person, on tens of thousands of questions, becomes even more ridiculous. – (**) As territorial “representation”, even of involuntary and opposing subjects, it was always wrong and irrational as well as non-representative. - JZ, 5.5.08. - PANARCHISM

REPRESENTATION: But something has gone wrong. The machinery – Parliament, the ballot box, representative democracy – has never worked effectively. The machinery of representation does not represent individual members of the public but the organized groups that claim to speak for them. As a result the institutions have increasingly diverged from the wishes or preferences of the people as individuals.” – Arthur Seldon, Charge, Temple Smith, London, 1977, p.11. - PARLIAMENT, DEMOCRACY, VOTING, BALLOT BOX, INHERENT COLLECTIVISM RATHER THAN INDIVIDUALISM, TERRITORIALISM

REPRESENTATION: Clearly, a man holding public office can be viewed only as an agent of others. But the entire concept of agency is a responsible one, in which the agent knows and can identify his principals and will act in their best interest. A man in Congress can neither show legal proof not offer any legal or moral evidence that anyone either appointed him as his agent or sought to get him to act in his best interests. And the reason for this is that the only manner in which a man can be chosen to Congress is by secret ballot, and thus not in an open and honest way in which he can point to his principals and state that he is, in fact, acting for them. …” - Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress, p.17. - The wrong and evil of territorialism would tend to persist even if secret voting were abolished. - A representation of the kind LeFevre aimed at can only be achieved in societies of like-minded volunteers, not in territorial States.

REPRESENTATION: Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.” – G. K. Chesterton, 1874-1936, in NEW YORK TIMES, 1 Feb. 1931. – If each governmental system is practiced only by individual choice or consent among those in favor of it, then each would get only what he deserves and cannot rightly complain, as long as he remains also free to secede from it again. Chesterton, too, had only a single territorial model for a whole population in mind. Just like a single restaurant menu choice or a single kind of home-cooked meal, this would certainly not be satisfactory for all of the population. Why imagine at all that it ever could be? – JZ, 30.3.09. – PANARCHISM, FREE CHOICE, CONSENT, SECESSIONISM, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, VOTING, GOVERNMENT, ARISTOCRACY, EDUCATION, ELITES, INTELLECTUALS, EDUCATION, ENLIGHTENMENT

REPRESENTATION: Either the voters are the principals and we have a representative government, or the voters are only irresponsible voting-machine manipulators and the government we have consists of a small body of men who exercise their own judgment and do as they please with other men’s lives and property. When a man assumes power over other men and then states that he must exercise his own judgment, he is arrogating to himself the power of a king. That is precisely the only kind of claim that any monarch has ever had to make.” - Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress, p.115. – DEMOCRACY, VOTING, POLITICIANS, TERRITORIALISM

REPRESENTATION: Even if the best man is always elected, there are some issues on which he does not represent many of those who voted for him.” – From Bliss’s Encyclopedia of Social Reform, article “Direct Legislation”. – And even if he is represented, his representative is only one among many and cannot outvote all the others or declare a veto on their decisions. - JZ, 21.2.11. - TERRITORIALISM, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, VOTING

REPRESENTATION: Few people can sufficiently represent themselves properly, their knowledge, their ideas, their abilities, their experience and their potential and possibly none are as yet fully aware of all their individual rights and liberties and of ways to use them optimally. Far less do they fully know all of their family members, their friends, their work mates. Parents do not fully know their children and children do not fully know their parents. And no one can properly represent not only himself but many others, thousands to millions of other people, most of whom he does not know at all. – Territorial representation is just a very deceptive, harmful and also immoral fiction.” – JZ, 9.10.88.

REPRESENTATION: Gumbert [Tom] has also come to realize that elected political representatives couldn’t represent all of the people in their district.” – Carl Watner, LeFevre, p.207. - POLITICIANS, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, VOTING

REPRESENTATION: Help Repeal Inflated Congressional Salaries: Are you tired of the most worthless people in our government making more than five average workers would make in a year? You can help fight government corruption by stemming the tide where it starts. … Most Congressmen make $ 42,500 a year, and that figure has now been raised. … If you wish to help stop Congress from stealing more and more out of your pockets, write to Citizens For Repeal Of Inflated Congressional Salaries, P.O. Box 12904, Oakland, Ca. 94604.” – FREEDOM TODAY, 2/76. - If they were not highly paid then they would be even more susceptible to bribes and their resulting and even worse decisions and spending programs might cost us much more than their high salaries plus the bribes they received. – If we paid them ten times as much on condition that they repeal all old laws and pass no new ones, we would be much better off. - JZ, 5.5.08. – When under their rule over the laws of a country unemployment increases or inflation, their salaries and fringe benefits should be correspondingly decreased. That might make them think about which of their many laws make these two wrongs and evils possible. A further increase in taxes should also reduce their salaries. – Then they would not be so eager to increase taxes even further. – On the other hand, they might then be even more ready to become bribed. – JZ, 2.4.09. - Territorially and among involuntary subjects a genuine political representation is impossible. - JZ, 21.2.11. – DIS.

REPRESENTATION: Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate representatives.” - Alexander Hamilton, remarks at the New York convention on the adoption of the federal Constitution, Poughkeepsie, New York, June 27, 1788. - Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 2, p. 348 (1836, reprinted 1937). - Hamilton was referring to the House of Representatives. - The great democratic and republican fallacy! - JZ, 11.10.02. - Due to the various voting procedures at most a minority of ca. 1/5th of the population comes to rule over the rest, even after a "landslide" victory that seems to establish majority rule and a "mandate" from the people. [If 3/4 of the population are entitled to vote, 3/4 do actually vote, the elected are voted in with a 3/4 majority and do make their decisions with a 3/4 majority, then we have 3/4 x 3/4 x 3/4 x 3/4 = 81/256, ca. 1/3rd of the population are represented. If these majorities come only to 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3, = 16/81, then only ca. 1/5th of the population are thus represented.  Often the majority is smaller still. – JZ, 22.7.12.] - It is hard enough to fully represent oneself. It is impossible to rightfully and correctly represent all others in most important matters of their lives. - JZ, 24.11.02. – No representative can truly represent tens of thousands of different people, who are not like-minded volunteers and haven’t all chosen him, individually, as their representative. Representation of whole territories, countries, districts and their populations is simply a myth or a false pretence. The 51% do not and cannot truly represent the 49 % nor can the 49%, favored by one or the other election system as victors, truly represent the 51%. It is an abuse of the language to use “consent” and “free voting” in this connection. – JZ, 30.3.09. – Personally, I hold that all individuals would be much better represented by an as complete declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties as could or should not be compiled and published at least by anarchists and libertarians – if they took themselves and their liberation task serious enough. But how many of them, or how few, work towards this kind of “platform” or “program” or this set of fundamental principles? I feel like a single voice in a wilderness. – J.Z., 22.7.12. - REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, REPUBLICANISM, DEMOCRACY, PEOPLE, STATE, POLITICIANS, POLITICIANS, LEADERSHIP, PARLIAMENTARISM, VOTING, MANDATE, FREE ELECTIONS, MAJORITARIANISM

REPRESENTATION: How right was Rousseau in his condemnation of representation. True participation can never be achieved through representative government.” – David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.6/7. – At least not through territorial representative government. For communities of like-minded volunteers representation will come closer to the ideal, where it is still thought to be necessary at all. – JZ, 15.5.08.

REPRESENTATION: I suggest that we all stop calling what we have a representative government and instead refer to it as a mere cabal of ambitious and power-hungry men who, by means of a secret and irresponsible process, intend to arrogate to themselves an arbitrary dominion over the lives, liberties, and properties of everyone in the country.” - Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress, p. 131. – Governmance systems over volunteers only and not claiming a territorial monopoly would deserve a quite different judgment. – J.Z., LeFevre did once reproduce de Puydt’s “Panarchy” essay but, apparently, it had no influence upon his thinking, which remainded confined to territorial governments, i.e. all the present ones. – JZ, 22.7.12. - TERRITORIALISM

REPRESENTATION: If government truly represented you, you would give it orders.” – Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p. 47. And if it did not, then you could, at least, secede from it. - JZ, 21.2.11. – The same applies to every “public servant”. If he does not serve you but you are still expected to pay taxes to his support and to obey him or her, then you should be free to secede, thereby shedding your tax burden and that imposed by bureaucrats. Remaining interactions would have to be negotiated between equals. – J.Z., 22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION: If Patrick Henry thought that taxation without representation was bad, he should see it with representation.” - THE FARMER'S ALMANAC - & TAXATION, TERRITORIALISM, EQUAL RIGHT TO VOTE, MAJORITARIANISM, LOBBIES, JOKES

REPRESENTATION: If, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress, the members of Congress are nobody’s agents. And if they are nobody’s agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts, and for the acts of all whom they employ.” – Lysander Spooner, No Treason VI, p.25, in Works, I. – But who, in a territorial State, with governmental jurisdiction, is able to hold them responsible? An international court of justice – appointed by such governments? – Let their victims secede, preferably before they are further victimized by them. At least some of those secessionist, if free to establish their own personal law communities, will set attractive alternative examples, which will lead to the collapse, sooner or later, of the rumps remaining of the former territorial State systems or to their reduction into insignificance. – JZ, 5.5.08,22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION: In any case … representative government was essentially authoritarian, for it deprived the individual of the right to exercise his free will.” – Appolon Karelin, quoted in Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p.154/55. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM VS. TERRITORIALISM & ITS INHERENT AUTHORITARIANISM

REPRESENTATION: In every representative system, whether called a parliament, a convention or something else, whether established by the prefects of a Bonaparte or elected by a rebellious people, on the basis of the fullest possible liberty (?), will always seek to widen its powers, increase its authority in every way and suppress the independence of the individual or group by means of the law.” – Kropotkin, Representative Government, in his “Paroles d’un Revolte”, Paris, 1885, 181/82. – All of the diverse individuals and groups in any population cannot be represented by a single territorial institution. They are much too different and much too antagonistic for that. But, if, instead, all of them sort themselves out into diverse groups of volunteers, all acting only under exterritorial autonomy and come to agree to leave each other sufficiently alone, while each is doing only the own things, then they could peacefully coexist, with each individual and group getting its own choices, in the own affairs, on its own responsibility. – JZ 15.5.08, 21.2.11.

REPRESENTATION: In the modern state, as Figgis insisted, the mass of people will have nothing to do with the law except to obey it, …” - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.7. - Or try to evade or break it and try to get away with this. - Under the threat and the enforcement of severe penalties that is not common or easy. In some countries refusals to accept the government's paper money was, sometimes, punished with death. - Wrongful territorial laws and their enforcement abound. - JZ, 21.2.11.

REPRESENTATION: It appears that today and almost exclusively the net-tax consumers are represented rather than the net-tax producers. Only the reverse arrangement would make at least some moral and rational sense. Those who are, on balance, tax consumers rather than tax producers, have themselves set up, quite legally, as owners and exploiters of tax slaves. Such a situation does not deserve being called self-government and self-determination. – JZ, 20.4.89, 15.5.08. - Nor does the centralized decision-making monopoly on war and peace and the monopoly and coercion of central banking. - JZ, 21.2.11.

REPRESENTATION: It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress.” – Mark Twain – CONGRESS, PARLIAMENTARISM, TERRITORIALISM, ORGANIZED CRIME

REPRESENTATION: It is a truism to say that the congressman is now only a liaison officer between his constituents and the Treasury Department.” - Frank Chodorov, Fugitive Essays, p.264. – If, at least, he would be that. But he does not even sufficiently represent the law, the constitution, and individual rights and liberties of the tax slaves there. However, he takes very good care of his own salaries, expense accounts and pension claims -at the expense of the tax victims. – JZ, 5.5.08m 22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION: It is a well-known fact of experimental observation that the present members of US Congress (with few exceptions) are lawyers. These people have spent long, arduous years in learning how to be obscure, illogical, and facile in the rapid production of mind numbing mumbo-jumbo incantations, best suited for accompanying the sacrifice of a virgin at Sunrise. Sure there are exceptions, but the odds are you’ll never meet one.” – Paul Nahin, ANALOG 10/78, p.173/74. – POLITICIANS, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, DEPUTIES, REPRESENTATIVES

REPRESENTATION: It is not easy for a person to do any great harm when his tenure of office is short, whereas long possession begets tyranny.” – Aristotle, Politics, 45h. c. B.C., 5.8, tr. Benjamin Jowett. – Admittedly, a short term is better than a long run. But: How long does it take “representatives” to get us e.g. into a war against our will, or into an inflation or mass unemployment, and how many years to decades does it take them, if they manage that at all, to get us out of such troubles again? – JZ, 20.11.85, 21.2.11. – Moreover, even a short-term continuance merely of all the wrongs and mistakes of his predecessors will already continue to do much harm, even if a new and short-term representative does not add any of his own. – JZ, 13.5.089. - If all of them were systematically repealing old wrongful and irrational laws and regulations, instead of wrongfully and irrationally adding to this mess, then they would do some good. - But are they? - If they haven't done anything good of that kind, within 6 or 12 months, then they should automatically lose their office. However, it be would much more rightful and useful to allow individual peaceful dissenters and whole groups of their subjects to opt out from under their rule and do their own things, under personal laws, i.e., exterritorially. - JZ, 21.2.11. - TENURE IN OFFICES, DIS.

REPRESENTATION: It is not impossible that history will also regard the period of which I write as the Age of the Big Lie in which bureaucracy and propaganda took over the functions of informed representative government (*) and created calamity for the world. In one sense all this corruption represents a victory over representative government by the very enemies with which the free nations (**) found themselves confronted in the terrible struggles of our times.” – Louis Broomfield, A New Pattern for a Tired World, p. 5. - Can we have it under territorialism? - JZ, 21.2.11. – (*) Have we ever had truly informed and representative governments? – JZ, 5.5.08. - (**) Both, the nation and their freedom are largely merely misleading fictions under territorialism. – JZ, 22.7.12. - Q., MYTHS, LIES, PROPAGANDA, BIG LIES, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY NOTIONS, TOTAL WARFARE

REPRESENTATION: It is vain to summon a people, which has been rendered so dependent on the central power, to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.” – Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America. - In this respect we are even more conditioned than children are under 8 years of compulsory primary schooling and without sufficient knowledge of and respect for the rights of children by their teachers and at home by their parents. - Neither most teachers nor most parents do so far know and appreciate all of their own and genuine individual rights and liberties, either. - That shows every time when they are acting as voters or as political representatives of territorial voters. - JZ, 21.2.11, 22.7.12. – VOTING, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, DEPENDENCY UPON GOVERNMENTS, DEMOCRACY, STATISM, WELFARE STATE, TERRITORIALISM

REPRESENTATION: No doubt effective personal representation is under any circumstances a matter of difficulty; but political organization admits only of the most imperfect form of it, voluntary organization of (*) the most perfect.” – Auberon Herbert, in Mack edition, p.6. – I hold that this statement would be clearer if the first and the third "of" were dropped. - JZ, 21.2.11, 22.7.12 . - PANARCHISM, PARTIES, VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM

REPRESENTATION: No one and no group can represent all. – JZ, 4.10.98. – Possibly, an international federation of local militias for the protection of all individual rights and liberties could. But it still shines by its absence, just like an ideal declaration of all of these rights and liberties. Am I the only one to notice these two absences? – JZ, 9.5.08. - If we had already the freedom to reorganize ourselves in a large number of diverse panarchies of volunteers, all of them exterritorially autonomous and thus realizing the ideal of panarchism, with its tolerance and experimental freedom for all peaceful citizens to do their own things, then, between them, they could represent all adult and rational citizens. - But our territorial representatives and territorial revolutionaries, terrorists and reformers do not yet aim at that, neither do most of their voters, politicians and party leaders or even most of their political "scientists". Most of the victims of territorialism still grant it the sanction of the victims. - JZ, 21.2.11. - VOTING, DEMOCRACY, PARLIAMENTS, POLITICIANS, MILITIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, DIS.

REPRESENTATION: Nobody can know all “the” people or even all those voters who actually voted for him. Thus nobody can fully represent those he is supposed to represent, and those, whose fundamental rights and liberties he is not supposed to infringe with the laws and regulations that he votes for and the numerous old ones that he fails to vote against, in repeals, and thus upholds. – JZ, 2.4.09, 22.7.12. - TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY

REPRESENTATION: None of the voters in this country appoint their political agents in any open authentic manner, or in any manner to make themselves responsible for their acts. Therefore these pretended agents cannot legitimately claim to be really agents. …” - Lysander Spooner, No Treason VI, p.28, in Works, I. – Government by "the people" or a temporary majority among the voters, cannot be genuine self-government. - JZ, 21.2.11. - RESPONSIBILITY, IRRESPONSIBILITY, TERRITORIALISM, VOTING, ELECTIONS, DEMOCRACY

REPRESENTATION: not a single member of Congress can identify or name any of those who have voted for him. And a man who claims to be an agent, acting for others, but who can show no legal or moral proof as to who those persons are for whom he acts, is clearly acting only in his own behalf. Since this is an obvious fact, it follows that no member of Congress is really an agent of anyone but himself.” – Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress, p.37. – “My letter was intended to bring to your attention the fact that you and all the other members of Congress, claiming to be representatives of the people in your respective districts or states, are in fact not representatives of anyone but yourselves. …” - Ibid, p.161. - At most he could demonstrate that he is the member of a party and that this party got so und so many votes during the last elections. But he does not know any of these voters for sure, since voting is secret and they might not tell the truth about which party they voted for, if asked. An anonymous mass, voting for one party, tries thus to dominate all other parties and the whole population of a territory. Should that not also fall under conspiracy laws? – From this point of view all politicians would only represent themselves. - If all parties strove only for full exterritorial autonomy for all their members and voters, then this would be quite another matter and secret voting would then most likely no longer be upheld, either. – On the contrary, their membership list would be open to inspection, at least by juridical agencies. - JZ, 5.5.08.

REPRESENTATION: Not only is there no machinery in representative democracy for asserting individual preferences over much of the services of contemporary government; the sizable number of government employees who provide them invariably prevail over the much larger number who use and pay for them.” - Arthur Seldon, Charge, Temple Smith, London, 1977, p.13. – All forms of territorialism shift power from the population, in all its diversity, from individuals, minorities and even the majority, to the territorial governments, the federal, the State and the local ones. – JZ, 30.3.09, 22.7.12. – POWER, VOTING INSTEAD OF INDIVIDUAL CHOICES THROUGH SECESSIONISM & VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP IN STATES & SOCIETIES, ALL WITHOUT A TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY: PANARCHISM VS. DEMOCRACY, PUBLIC SERVANTS, BUREAUCRACY, CIVIL SERVICE, MAJORITIES, TERRITORIALISM VS. INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

REPRESENTATION: One cannot represent millions. Neither could hundreds or thousands. – JZ, 16.8.89, 15.5.08.

REPRESENTATION: One must have lived in that isolator which is called a National Assembly to realize how the men who are most completely ignorant of the state of a country are almost always those who represent it. … Most of my colleagues or the left and the extreme left were in the same perplexity of mind, the same ignorance of daily facts.” – Proudhon, Confessions of a Revolutionary, quoted in George Woodcock, Proudhon, p.129. – PARLIAMENTS, DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIALISM

REPRESENTATION: Only one thing is not represented in the legislature: the nation as a whole.” – Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy, p.97. (*) – While many special interests and pressure groups are represented, even over-represented, their victims are not and numerous dissenting individuals and minorities are not sufficiently represented either, unless they could afford to buy themselves some representatives or could form an influential pressure groups, threatening with a boycott of their voters if their demands were ignored. The territorial whole of the population is not and cannot be fully represented by anyone or any particular party or group or parliament. All such attempts failed and had to fail. Only among like-minded volunteers an one come close to genuine representation. – JZ, 15.5.08. - (*) Neither are all genuine individual rights liberties known, declared and represented there. – JZ, 22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION: Our forefathers should have fought for representation without taxation.” – Quoted in: Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do ‘til the Revolution, Breakout Productions, Port Townsend, Washington, 1999, rev. ed., ISBN 1-89.3626-13-X, p.16. – While it makes sense to fight for one’s own rights and liberties, does it make sense to fight for the privileges of one’s politician or representative? – JZ, 26.9.07. – The forefathers or at least we, by now, should have realized that only volunteers can be represented, not subjects and  involuntary victims of a compulsory territorial monopoly State, which as such continued the wrongful monopoly of absolute monarchism. – J.Z., 22.76.12. – POLITICIANS, STATE, GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM

REPRESENTATION: Our present political position has been achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them at will whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.” - Jefferson Davis, inaugural address as president of the Confederate States of America, Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861. - Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist, His Letters, Papers and Speeches, ed. Dunbar Rowland, vol. 5, p. 50 (1923). Davis served in Congress 1845-1846 and 1847-1851. - Individuals, minority groups and majority groups must finally get the right to provide for themselves those institutions and laws that they want for themselves. Collective territorial decision making is inherently wrongful and harmful. Let each mind his own public business or his own voluntary involvement with his preferred public business. - JZ, 11.10.02. - Consent can rightfully be only individual consent. Imagine consumer decisions and marriage decisions only being arrived at collectively, by majority voting and "consent". Imagine your clothing, entertainment, reading, travel, sports, etc., all being collectively decided instead of by yourself. - JZ, 24.11.02. – Any community of volunteers should be defined as “the people”, as far as that community is concerned. – JZ, 30.3.09. - TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS, CONSENT, DEMOCRACY, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, PEOPLE, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT VS. ALL KINDS OF COERCIVE COLLECTIVISM, CHOICE OF GOVERNMENT OR SOCIETY, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

REPRESENTATION: Our system lives by the myth of “representation” and “delegated powers”. State legislators and even congressmen, whom no one in a hundred of their constituents could even name, pretend they speak for and “represent” the people. But Spooner argues such legislative power is not legitimate. The so-called people’s representatives in fact only represent a small faction. The fact that political leaders might represent a majority also would prove nothing. A majority who support their government and do not resist tyranny can be found in most countries. “What do they prove?” Spooner asks: “Nothing by the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption, an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain the governments that have so oppressed, degraded and corrupted them.” – Charles Chiveley in his introduction to Lysander Spooner, No Treason I, page 4/5 of Works I.

REPRESENTATION: Politicians represent themselves more than they represent most of those who voted for them and they cannot rightly represent those who did not vote for them. – JZ, 30.7.98, 9.5.08m 21.2.11. – Nor can they fairly represent e.g. those who have quite opposite views on any subject. – JZ, 20.10.08, 21.2.11. - POLITICIANS, PARLIAMENTS, DEMOCRACY, PEOPLE, VOTING

REPRESENTATION: Politicians truly represent only themselves. They cannot truly represent even all the members of their own party, as each leadership struggle proves. Far less can they represent all their own voters, on many to most of their ideas and opinions. None of them can possibly represent a whole territorial population on any, many or all remaining controversies. Territorial representation remains a fiction. Representation can only be approached in communities of like-minded volunteers. – JZ, 24.3.93, 21.2.11, 22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION: Professor Meltzer now asks why the public acquiesce in the incessant growth of government and why it does not, in countries with a system of free government, act to stop or reverse the process. He offers an explanation for the origin and strength of the trend: the costs of government are diffused and the benefits concentrated. Thus there is organized and effective political support for expansion, but feeble and widely dispersed resistance to increased public spending programs.” – Roger A. Freeman, introducing: Meltzer’s “Why Government Growth.” - Firstly, individuals and dissenting minorities are not free to secede. Secondly, taxation is not voluntary. Not even the allocation of one’s taxes to different spending programs has been turned into an individual’s free choice. Free government does not mean free people, free minorities and free individuals, especially not under territorialism. – Roy Childs, David Friedman and probably many others have made statements similar to that of Prof. Meltzer. – JZ, 5.5.08. – The minimum requirements for genuine representation are not fulfilled in any State today: 1. Voluntary membership of largely like-minded people. 2.) No territorial monopoly. 3.) Their laws are only personal law, not territorial legislation. 4.) Dissenting individuals and groups are free to secede. 5.) The dissenters are also free to establish competing societies, communities and governance systems in the same territory. Then we will finally see significant degrees or genuine representation instead of merely the false pretence of it. – JZ, 22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION: Representation and Recall: Every rational being has the right to authorize somebody to represent its rights and interests. It may withdraw this authority any time without having to state its reasons. - Comment: This concerns particularly the election and recall of parliamentarians, public servants and military officers. – From the human rights draft in PEACE PLANS No.4, article 37. – RECALL

REPRESENTATION: Representation does not represent because no one man can perfectly represent another.” – Bliss, editor, Encyclopedia of Social Reform, article “Direct legislation”.  – We are all much to different and unequal for that. We do also change over periods of time. Moreover, many voters manage to maintain even contradictory views. Can both of them be represented by a politician? Perhaps only if he happens to have the same contradictions in his own head. – JZ, 22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION: Representation in politics is rather like representation in love. It only works in a theoretical sense.” – Karl Hess, Letter to Martin Shepard, undated. - Rather: only in a hypothetical sense. Was anyone foolish enough to propose such a theory or hypothesis for sexual relationships? - Perhaps political representation would be bearable if confined only to one-night stands? - It is, I believe, bearable within communities of like-minded volunteers. - JZ, 21.2.11, 22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION: representative bodies in fact deny the people power. To put it another way, the existence of representative bodies deprives the population of a number of learning processes.” – Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p.35. - Territorial "representation" deprives them of all the genuine self-government and self-management options that are possible only in societies and communities of volunteers that are exterritorially autonomous under their own personal law. - JZ, 21.2.11.

REPRESENTATION: Representative democracies or republics do not sufficiently represent those, whom they are supposed to represent. They, too, have their at least temporarily conquered and dominated groups, their dissenters, rebels, revolutionaries and terrorists. All rule, at least before the next election, over many involuntary subjects and taxpayers. They do not permit them to secede and to rule themselves in accordance with their own ideologies or other convictions or faiths, although they could rightfully rule only over people who are volunteers, who have given them their individual consent, or who are aggressors against them or who criminally victimized some of their voluntary members and subjects. Further, who or what authorized them to acquire and keep in readiness mass extermination devices or to ally themselves with those regimes which do so? Over 200 years ago Immanuel Kant stated that all governments that monopolize decisions on war and peace are really still despotisms. – JZ, 23.7.97, 9.5.08, 21.2.11. – DEMOCRACY, REPUBLICS, WAR & PEACE DECISIONS, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

REPRESENTATION: Representative democracy is all too flawed. It largely leads only to “free” choices for by politicians and bureaucrats. In honestly conducted plebiscites only the temporary majority will get its will, if they are realized. – JZ, 17.12.05, 29.10.07. - However, a democracy or republic would be quite different if it were only established and conducted for its voluntary members and subjects, under full exterritorial autonomy. - JZ, 21.2.11. - DEMOCRACY

REPRESENTATION: Representative government, he wrote, is the best possible for the administration of justice, and the worst possible for everything else.” – Henry Meulen, in THE INDIVIDUALIST, June 77, on Herbert Spencer. – Is that really true for the administration of justice - by a monopolistic governmental department? Moreover, one that is supposed to decide justly by applying numerous unjust laws! – JZ, 5.5.08, 22.7.12. – DIS., JUSTICE, COURTS

REPRESENTATION: Representative governmentmeans that the government represents the people’s interests before election, and its own interests after election.” – Aami Wisdore, Free World, p.16. – Before “the” or “an” election? - Before the election the candidates are not yet the new government, although some may be members of the outgoing government. Thus the representation claims are made merely by candidates, pretending to be able to properly represent all voters and thereby trying to get the majority of the voters to vote for them. But their very slogans and platforms reveal their own ignorance, errors and prejudices – as well as those of the voters. Obviously, they cannot represent the better informed and the unprejudiced. But, nevertheless, they do intend to territorially rule them, with the help of their votes in parliament or the government offices they might gain. - JZ, n.d. & 22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION: Representatives can at best only represent those who vote for them and even these voters should remain free to secede from their representatives and from the whole territorial government – sometimes only after giving notice – and they should also be free to establish or join an exterritorially autonomous community of volunteers which they do feel would represent their rights, liberties and interests sufficiently. – JZ, 28.4.93, 11.5.08. – PANARCHISM, VOTING, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, FREE CHOICE AMONG GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES FOR SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS

REPRESENTATION: Representatives mainly represent merely themselves. – Their degrees of obesity, compared with that of the general population, in their age group, would be some indication of that. Fat cats is mostly an apt term for them. But skinny ones can be power-mad as well and also very expensive and risky for those, whom they “represent”. - JZ, 20.7.01, 30.3.09, 22.7.12. - REPRESENTATIVES, MPs, PARLIAMENTARIANS, POLITICIANS, MINISTERS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS

REPRESENTATION: Representatives of our interests are people who, in our name, represent their own interests.” – Helmar Nahr. – JZ tr. of: “Interessenvertreter sind Leute, die in unserem Namen ihre Interessen vertreten.” - Under territorialism. Under voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy real representation is possible and might be nothing but an aspect of division of labor. - JZ, 22.2.11.

REPRESENTATION: Robert LeFevre has set out to prove the notion to be literally true, that Congressmen really don’t know what they are doing. Or what they should be doing. Or what gives them the legal or moral right to do anything in the first place.” – Steve Eddy, SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA REGISTER, Oct. 26, 1976, in reviewing “The Power of Congress”.

REPRESENTATION: Someone who does not know or appreciate my principles, aims, methods and beliefs cannot possibly represent them. He can only become a hindrance to them. Representation is only possible between sufficiently like-minded people. That excludes territorial representation of whole populations, wrongfully called nations or peoples. – JZ, 9.7.96, 9.5.08.  – Compare: “Communication takes places only between equals.” -INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM POLITICIANS, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOTING

REPRESENTATION: Taxpayers should not allow such arrogant rip-off merchants to get one foot inside parliament.” – David Taylor, Brisbane, 1977. – As taxpayers they have no votes. They are not even allowed to form ideal militias for the protection of their individual rights and liberties. They are not free to secede and to set up exterritorially autonomous alternative societies and communities. - They are actually disfranchised to a really significant extent. Their individual territorial and collectivist vote among millions of others does neither safeguard their own affairs nor is it right for the affairs of the millions of others in a State. Even if they elected only honest and educated idealists – how long would these stay honest and idealistic in an all-powerful parliament, which has usurped the authority to legally restrict even genuine individual rights and liberties, which, by the way, they have never fully recognized and declared as such. – JZ, 5.5.08, 22.7.12. – DIS., VOTING, TERRITORIALISM

REPRESENTATION: Territorial representation can at most represent only a few at the expense of the many. Generally, it exploits and represses – under the pretence of representation or popular rule. – JZ, 27.2.89.

REPRESENTATION: Territorial representative democracy is neither fully representative nor democratic and cannot be, fully, either. – The dissenters are not free to opt out from under it and engage in their own form of self-government, with like-minded volunteers, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, doing their own things for or to themselves. – They live under imposed laws and taxes, i.e. a form of dictatorship, until they manage to form the majority and force their system upon the others. - JZ, 15.6.92, 15.5.08. – DEMOCRACY, VOTING

REPRESENTATION: that the moment we have cast our ballots, the representative takes over (as Rousseau, and before him, Victor Considerant pointed out) and we have lost our freedom.” – Howard Zinn, Disobedience and Democracy, p.65. – VOTING, FREEDOM. – In short, we limit and lose our freedom through territorial voting. – JZ, 5.5.08, 21.2.11.

REPRESENTATION: The best territorial representatives we could get would be those so obviously incompetent that nobody would entrust his money and fate to them and everybody would rather join a tax rebellion, general revolution or secession, rather than submit to them. Afterwards, finally, everybody could either represent himself, in a market free of any territorial despotism, or appoint a true representative – but one for his own affairs only, joining for this with some other and like-minded people in communities and societies of their own, under personal laws and without any territorial monopoly claim, just like they do form today numerous private associations of volunteers for xyz other purposes. Within such alternative institutions they could apply whatever more or less representative system they prefer for themselves. – JZ, 24.6.78, 5.5.08, 21.2.11.

REPRESENTATION: The Common Law knew nothing of that system which now prevails …, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representatives, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed.” – Lysander Spooner, in “Trial by Jury”, appendix, quoted by Carl Watner in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p.126.

REPRESENTATION: The corruption of democracy proceeds directly from the fact that one class imposes the taxes and another class pays them. The constitutional principle, ‘No taxation without representation’ is utterly set at nought.” – Dean W. R. Inge, Outspoken Essays, I, II. – At least for dissenting individuals and minorities. – JZ, 5.5.08. – CONSTITUTIONALISM, TAXATION, DEMOCRACY

REPRESENTATION: the fact remains that man is at the mercy of his own representatives – the government or the state. … he has failed to keep his own invention under control.” - Kevork Ajemian, The Fallacy of Modern Politics, Books International, PO Box 6096, McLean, Virginia 22106, 1986, Tel. (703) 821-8900, p.98. – Territorial representatives cannot be really representative of all of the population, including the numerous and very diverse dissenters. The only effective control, namely individual and minority groups secessionism, combined with free competition from exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, has been outlawed everywhere. – JZ, 7.10.07, 21.2.11. - CITIZENS & GOVERNMENT, STATE, POLITICIANS

REPRESENTATION: The idea that the central government – one huge mainframe – is the most important part of governance – is obsolete, which means the end of politics as we have known it, as we shift from representative democracy (*) to free-market democracy.” - John Naisbitt, Global Paradox, p.58. – Even to a free market and free enterprise and consumer sovereignty for communities of like-minded volunteers, under personal laws, i.e. under full exterritorial autonomy for all of them – at least all those, prepared to respect this autonomy in all other communities of volunteers. – JZ, 19.9.07. - - (*) or political party despotism – JZ, 16.9.07. - REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY TO FREE MARKET DEMOCRACY, POLITICS AS USUAL, I.E. TERRITORIAL POLITICS, WILL COME TO AN END, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM = FREE MARKET DEMOCRACY? ANY GOVERNMENT OR SOCIETY BY FREE CHOICE OR CONSENT?

REPRESENTATION: The individual’s power is more and more fragmented; he feels helpless because he is helpless. To tell a person he is represented by his Congressman, that he can take care of a grievance by writing a letter to Washington, or by voting in the next election, is rightly seen as a joke.” – Howard Zinn, Disobedience and Democracy, p.114.

REPRESENTATION: The Making of Ciphers: If we look closely, we find that these systems only mean that if we have no personal opinions, we can be represented, so far as it is possible or worthwhile to represent blank sheets of paper; if we have personal opinions, we can’t be represented. (*) The question then forces itself upon us, is it a bit of honest work, is it profitable, is it worth the trouble, to construct a huge machinery for the purpose of representing ciphers, who have no opinions; and when we have constructed our illusory, our make-believe machine, to go into the market-place, and therefrom deliver ourselves of speeches about the excellence of our self-governing system? …” - Auberon Herbert, Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine, p.62. - (*) Except in communities of sufficiently like-minded volunteers. And to the extent that there exists agreement in such communities voting there would almost be superfluous. – JZ, 5.5.08, 21.2.11.

REPRESENTATION: The mere fact of a system of so-called representatives will not secure freedom.” – Figgis, in David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.7. - At least under territorialism and in the economic sphere it has, as a rule, assured the opposite. – JZ, 15.5.08, 21.2.11. - How can one territorially represent at the same time and for a whole country and all its population e.g. the advocates of voluntary schooling and of compulsory schooling, of voluntary vaccination and of compulsory vaccination, of voluntary or compulsory abortion and of the opponents of abortion, of drinkers and of teetotalers, of protectionists and of free traders, etc. It is attempting the impossible and at best leads only to compromises that are not fully satisfying to either side. - JZ, 21.2.11.

REPRESENTATION: The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.” – Congressman Ron Paul, 1987. - But why entrust our lives, liberties, security, property etc. to these people in the first place and why continue to do so, in spite of all the bad experiences with them, regardless which of their parties was in power? - JZ, 22. 11. 06. – Territorialism establishes impossible jobs, which even Gods could not satisfactorily fill. – A single law, system, method or leader is simply not suitable and satisfactory to all the population of a territory, as is demonstrated again and again in the daily news. To each his own, just like in our free shopping and numerous other free and individual or group activities. – JZ, 30.3.09. - REPRESENTATIVES, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, CHOICE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW

REPRESENTATION: The representative is quite distinguished, meaning, he is marked out, as being at the disposal of others, if the price is right, by his standards.” – Bert Berkenstraeter – JZ translation attempt and comment to the German version: (“… der Abgeordnete ist ausgezeichnet; das heisst, er hat seinen festen Preis.”) - More literal translation: “The deputy is a marked-out man, he has his fixed price.” - Most of those, he is supposed to territorially represent, are simply either his victims or the victimizers of the non-consenting victims, who are victimized by the "representative" helping to legalize this victimization, e.g. the tax payers and the tax payment recipients. - JZ, 21.2.11.

REPRESENTATION: the sad demise of our representative system of government, a system which no longer represents anybody who doesn't have money, or power, or both.” - W. T. Quick, Safe to the Liberties of the People, ANALOG, 6/87, p.139. – Its territorial forms were never fully representative and could not be. Even all members of a nuclear family are not, in all cases, truly represented by a single member of that family, as everybody knows from his or her own experience. – JZ, 30.3.09. – TERRITORIALISM, REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM, DEMOCRACY, GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS, DEPUTIES, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, PARTIES, POLITICS

REPRESENTATION: The social entity must be represented by free contributions of mental and bodily labor, for only in such a way is it possible for every individual, without exception, to take part in the expression of the common life and work. It cannot be represented where there is a cooked-up thing, called representation, which simply means the utterly false and artificial merging of thousands of persons into one person, and where one faction imposes its will on another faction, while the great mass of individuals simply look on, and a handful of self-seeking and self-glorifying persons act in their name. What is there of “entity” and what of “social” in such system?” – Auberon Herbert, in Mack edition, p.256. - PEOPLE, COMMUNITY, STATE, SOCIETY, PANARCHISM, LEADERSHIP, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, POLITICIANS

REPRESENTATION: The whole system, dictatorial, authoritative, governmental, three synonyms, rests upon this insensate idea that people can be represented by others than themselves: No one can represent the people because no one better than they, can know their needs or their will.” – Arthur Arnould, “The State”, THE REBEL, Feb. 1896.

REPRESENTATION: There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.” – Dr. Laurence J. Peter, 1991. – And there can never be enough representatives until each US adult citizen is a sovereign individual and free to represent himself, making his own choices of agents, institutions, laws and systems, a sovereign consumer and a sovereign producer, trader and entrepreneur in this sphere as well. – Until then he is outvoted and outgunned by people and representatives, the vast majority of whom he has never met and does not know at all, just like they don’t know him, as a rule. – JZ, 15.5.08. – PANARCHISM, VOTING, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & CHOICE

REPRESENTATION: There is a further point that could be made here. All members of Congress, as they are presently chosen, are selected only by a plurality of those within their districts. (*) But the moment a winner is announced, the individual thus chosen proceeds to claim that he now represents all the persons in his district. This is contrary to both law and reason. The persons in his district have various opinions and often conflicting interests. It has long been a principle at law that no agent can represent at the same time two persons who have a conflict of interest. Any such person pretending to act as an agent for two different persons with a conflict of interest could quickly be cited under the law, tried, and convicted in an honest court – unless he is a congressman. Although the congressman professes and pretends to be acting as an agent, he is going to act against the interests and wishes of large numbers of those within his district whom he says he represents. And this is the unhappy fact that confronts all members of Congress, in both houses, as well as the president of the United States.” – Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress. - Only within communities of volunteers, i.e., those without any territorial monopoly, can there exist some true representatives, on points all their volunteers have in common. - (*) Those who bothered to vote. These tend to become a minority. – JZ, 5.5.08.

REPRESENTATION: They aren’t our “representatives”. They are “politicians” – which everyone knows is a dirty word. Or (with your voice dripping with sarcasm) they are our rulers, our bosses.” – Claire Wolfe, Don’t Shoot the Bastards (YET), 101 More Ways To Salvage Freedom, p.6. – The mere word is not dirty, but the people, summed up by it, all too often are and they tend to become more corrupted still the longer they remain in territorial power. – JZ, 30.3.09. - REPRESENTATIVES, POLITICIANS, RULERS, BOSSES

REPRESENTATION: Those who have voted against the winner are now under the jurisdiction of someone who doesn’t represent them. – Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom …, p.73. – Territorial representation does not and cannot represent. – Its victims are not only under the jurisdiction but also under their legislation and general administration of the winners, even under their decisions on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties. Anyhow, all the questions that will be decided by the elected, during their terms, are not even raised, far less decided, during the election campaigns. No one gets to pick and choose the detailed policies that he would prefer for himself, in the same way that he can fill his shopping cart in the supermarket or sign special insurance contracts. Only panarchism offers a close approximation to that choice. It requires voluntary membership and exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. We are still very far from that ideal for free societies or free communities or from completely free market relationships for all peaceful individuals. – JZ, 25.11.76, 5.5.08. – VOTING, ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

REPRESENTATION: Those whom you nominate as your Representatives will one day become your masters.” – Erckmann-Chatrian, The Story of a Peasant, II, p.310. – One must become free to individually secede even from one’s supposedly free and democratic republic, including its talk-shops,  supreme command councils, ministries, departments, other institutions, laws, and regulations. (Not to speak of all others States, which are more or less despotic, tyrannical or even totalitarian ones.) Only then will representatives become or remain truly representatives. Moreover, the seceded must be free to appoint their own kinds of representatives within their own kinds of exterritorially autonomous communities of like-minded volunteers. Territorial representation can never be sufficient or complete enough. – JZ, 27.7.92, 12.5.08, 22.7.12.

REPRESENTATION: Those whom you nominate as your Representatives will one day become your masters." - Erckmann - Chatrian, "The Story of a Peasant", II, 310. - One must be free to individually secede, even from one's supposedly democratic or republican or patriotic representatives and their territorialist laws and institutions. - JZ, 27.7.92, 10.12.03, 22.7.12.                       

REPRESENTATION: To be elected is by itself no honor. In our times Hitler and Stalin got millions of votes. – JZ, 22.7.75.

REPRESENTATION: Top down, exclusive, centralized, collectivistic and coercive territorial rule is never sufficiently representative. Populations and their ideals and opinions are much too diverse for that. – JZ, 30.7.98, 9.5.08. – TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, CONSENT

REPRESENTATION: Try demanding that your ‘representative’ vote as you would. He doesn’t have to. Who does he represent? By what authority?” – From poster on p.341 of H. J. Ehrlich et al, Reinventing Anarchy.

REPRESENTATION: under the Constitution (which you claim provides for a representative government) the lives, liberties, and properties of some are to be confiscated, in whole or in part, for the benefit of others. The persons suffering under these constant and increasing coercions are counseled to submit …” – Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress, p.137. – In short, they are not represented. – JZ, 5.5.08. - RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, CONSTITUTIONALISM.

REPRESENTATION: Vacuum cleaner salesmen sell vacuum cleaners, car salesmen sell cars. One should not expect the people’s representatives to act differently.” – Dieter Hildebrandt. – JOKES

REPRESENTATION: What does representative government mean? It means the rule of the majority and the subjection of the minority; the rule of every three men out of five, and the subjection of every two men. It means that all rights go to the three men, no rights to the two men. The lives and fortunes, the actions, the faculties, and property of the two men, in some cases their beliefs and thoughts, so far as these last can be brought within the control of machinery, are all vested in the three men, as long as they can maintain themselves in power. The three men represent the conquering race, and the two men, the conquered race. As citizens, the two men are de-citizenized; they have lost all share for the time in the possession of their country, they have no recognized part in the guidance of its fortunes; as individuals they are de-individualized, and hold all their rights, if rights they have, on sufferance. The ownership of their bodies, and the ownership of their minds and souls – so far as you can transfer by machinery the ownership of mind and soul from the rightful owners to the wrongful owners, - no more belongs to them, but belongs to those who hold the position of the conquering race.” - Auberon Herbert, Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine, p.54.

REPRESENTATION: What right had they to say, We, the People? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask: Who authorized them to speak the language of We, the People …? The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear.” – Patrick Henry, quoted in: Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress, p.18/19. – PEOPLE

REPRESENTATION: what they call a Representative Government is only meant as a trick and a toy to delude and amuse grown children.” – J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-Government and Centralization, 1851, p.30.

REPRESENTATION: When the sovereign is elective, or narrowly watched by a legislature which is really elective and independent, the oppression which he exercises over individuals is sometimes greater, but it is always less degrading, because every man, when he is oppressed and disarmed, may still imagine, that whilst he yields obedience it is to himself he yields it, and that it is to one of his own inclinations that all the rest give way.” - Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America. – That is hardly the case when his faction has been outvoted by another faction. But fictions are often more effective than facts. – JZ, 5.5.08.

REPRESENTATION: when the supreme authority is entrusted to delegates, the government becomes aristocratic.” – Rousseau, Constitutional Project for Corsica, in F. Watkins, Rousseau, p.286. – DELEGATES, DEMOCRACY, ARISTOCRACY

REPRESENTATION: Whenever you act and think wholesale, and in authoritative fashion for others, you become to a certain extent limited and incapacitated in your own nature. …” - Auberon Herbert, Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine, p.67. – At the same time you encounter your natural limits. You cannot really think and act for others, no matter how hard you try. If you try to do so, you usually arrive at the wrong conclusions. And all too often your personal nature breaks through and your own personal interests, opinions and ideas are imposed upon the affairs of a whole population. – JZ, 5.5.08. - As Auberon Herbert put it, a few lines later: “You lose sight of the great and vital ends, and allow the small things to change places with the all-important things. You are no more in touch with the living forces that make for progress. Why? Are the reasons far to seek? The body of officials – however good and honorable in themselves – form a caste, that administers the administered, and does not really share in the actual life …” - RESPONSIBILITY, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, COLLECTIVISM, CENTRALIZATION

REPRESENTATION: While the title of congressman implies that he represents the views of his constituency, anybody knows one cannot represent two opposite views at the same time.” – Rep. Albert H. Quie, Minn., in Robert LEFEVRE’S JOURNAL. Winter 76.

REPRESENTATION: Why does “representative” government so often appear to misrepresent the wishes of the governed? … The ethical basis of political freedom is not so much that every citizen must be presumed to know his own true interests best, but that no-one else can claim to know them better; that way lies benevolent dictatorship, which would not for long remain benevolent.” – Ralph Harris, The End of Government …?, p.14. – Q.

REPRESENTATION: With very few exceptions, today’s Members of Congress represent A SORT OF REVERSE EVOLUTION FROM 1789. Men have turned into monkeys, albeit with law degrees.” – Llewellyn H. Rockwell, in: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, ed., The Economics of Liberty, Mises Institute, 1990, p.147. – Well, one thing is certain: They do much more wrong and damage than monkeys do. – JZ, 4.10.07. - REPRESENTATIVES, POLITICIANS, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, DELEGATES, CONGRESS

REPRESENTATION: Without agreement among the (*) voters back home, whom does the representative really ‘represent’? (**) - Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p.437. - - (*) all the peaceful -  (**) Apart from himself, his ideology and his party and, at most, the local and temporary majority, always fluctuating, because it, too, is largely made up of various minority groups and even the largest voluntary parties constitute only a minority in the population. – JZ, 24.9.07. - & VOTING, DEMOCRACY, CONSENT, TERRITORIALISM, UNANIMOUS CONSENT, MAJORITIES, MINORITIES

REPRESENTATION: You don’t have a representative any more. You merely have someone who thinks he or she is your “leader”, unfettered by either your opinions or the Constitution.” - Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do ‘til the Revolution, Breakout Productions, Port Townsend, Washington, 1999, rev. ed., ISBN 1-89.3626-13-X, p.1. REPRESENTATIVES, POLITICIANS, LEADERSHIP

REPRESENTATION: You hold your place only by a title, which, on no just principle of law or reason, is worth a straw. And all who are associated with you in the government – whether they be called senators, representatives, judges, executive officers, or what not – all hold their places, directly or indirectly, only by the same worthless title. That title is nothing more nor less than votes given in secret (by secret ballot), by not more than one-fifth of the whole population. These votes were given in secret solely because those who gave them did not dare to make themselves personally responsible either for their own acts, or the acts of their agents, the lawmakers, judges, etc. – These voters, having given their votes in secret (by secret ballot), have put it out of your power – and out of the power of all others associated with you in the government – to designate your principals individually. That is to say, you have no legal knowledge as to who voted for you, or who voted against you. And being unable to designate your principals individually, you have no right to say that you have any principals. And having no right to say that you have any principals, you are bound, on every just principle of law or reason, to confess that you are mere usurpers, making laws, and enforcing them, upon your own authority alone.” – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p. 10/11.

REPRESENTATION: Your letter attempts to make a major point of the fact that you do not claim to represent everybody. Then what are you doing imposing on … those you do not represent? Are you not implying by your actions that a grant of temporary power by some men gives you power over other men who do not grant that power? To presume that such a grant is possible is to presume that an independent voter has some right or power over his follows, which he can transfer to his agent. But no independent voter has such a right or such a power. The only right or power that he possibly can have is the right and power to control himself. Yet by this clandestine and furtive method, the secret ballot, men who have no power over their fellows presumably grant you and your fellow congressmen a power they do not possess. That, sir, is an impossibility.” - Robert LeFevre, The Power of Congress, p.114.

REPRESENTATIVES: Big spenders of other people’s money. – JZ, 2.4.09

REPRESENTATIVES: No government can be truly representative because no one can truly and fully represent others. We are all different. No two people are quite alike. Moreover, most people cannot even represent themselves sufficiently towards other people. To assume that some people could not only represent themselves but also many others, and this quite rightfully, rationally and sufficiently, is quite wrong, especially when these others did not even have a vote or did not vote or did not vote for those who were elected by the majority. And how can “representatives” quite fairly represent both of quite opposite cases or claims? Whom are they to represent, the meat eaters or the vegetarians or which among xyz recommended diets? The best solution consists not in making territorial decisions for all others but in letting people make their own individual and voluntary group choices, always at their own risk and expense. For that we do not need territorial voting, laws, decision-making and institutions but just freedom for all peaceful individuals and their voluntary groups, all doing their own things for or to themselves. Free enterprise (including productive coops) and consumer sovereignty instead of political decision-making, free pricing and subscription and contribution schemes instead of taxes! Our own private and group budgets instead of those imposed upon us by territorial politicians! – JZ, 28.12.93, 11.5.08. - PANARCHISM

REPRESENTATIVES: The more I see of the representatives of the people, the more I like my dogs.” - Alphonse de Lamartine, 1850, Compte d’Orsay, FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS, Nov./Dec. 89, p.14. – PEOPLE, ANIMAL LOVERS, JOKES

REPRESENTATIVES: The representatives of the people, who are elected to govern on its behalf, become transformed into delegates of the party subject to the directives of its central committee.” – Noah Nissany, FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS, No. 49, Sept. 98, p. 178. - PARTIES, PARTY DISCIPLINE POLITICIANS, POLITICS AS USUAL, PARLIAMENTS VS. THE PEOPLE

REPRESENTATIVES: Why do they call each other “Honorable”? – Because no one else will? – Or because they are too much inclined to accuse or curse each other for what they know about each other? – One cannot very well say: “The honorable liar or bribe recipient or embezzler.” - JZ, 17.8.94 – JOKES

REPRESSION: Those in power forget all too easily that the greater on the one side the suppression of liberty is, the greater is on the other side the wish and the will to achieve freedom.” – JZ tr. of J. H. Mackay, Abrechnung: “Die Machthaber vergessen nur zu leicht, dass, je grosser auf der einen Seite die Unterdrueckung der Freiheit ist, um so staerker auf der anderen der Wunsch und Will nach dieser Freiheit wird.” – But there are degrees of responses and also opposite responses to the abuse of power: All too often absolute official repression, tyranny, terrorism and totalitarianism encounter largely only apathy, resignation, and absolute submission, however large the mental reservations of some of the victims still are. But strong repression will also tend to encounters desperate resistance as long as some notions of freedom still remain in some heads. Some steady repression encounters adaptation to it and moderate repression and a relaxation of oppression often lead to a strong resistance, aiming at more rights and liberties. The victims evaluate their chances and act accordingly. The remaining repression in democracies is, unfortunately largely ignored or even popular, e.g. regarding immigration restrictions. – JZ, 6.5.08, 23.7.12. - OPPRESSION, SUPPRESSION, DICTATORSHIPS, GOVERNMENTS, POWER, TOTALITARIANISM, RULERS, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, RESISTANCE, TERRORISM, TYRANNY, SUBMISSIVENESS, OBEDIENCE, STATISM


REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA: A republic only for those, who want it for themselves. A direct democracy for those who prefer it. A constitutional monarchy for those, who still like it. And no territorial government at all for those, who are thoroughly sick of all of them. To all individuals the government or non-governmental society that they like for themselves. – JZ, 26.11.93, 11.5.08. - That would really be in the interest of all parts of the general public or of the population of this continent. - JZ, 22.2.11. - PANARCHISM

REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA: An Australian “pure” republic would not reduce unemployment, sales difficulties, inflation, stagflation, bureaucracy or the tax burden or solve any other problem except that of top politicians who want still more power for themselves. In no other respect would it be any “better” for the vast majority of all Australians. It would make matters worse insofar as it would remove one formal and institutional veto right against excess powers of Australian politicians, for the Queen or the King of the British Commonwealth could, so far, recall a government through her or his royal representative, the Governor General, which was done at least twice to good effect in Australia. This happened although Australian politicians have already all too much influence upon who is to occupy the offices of Governor General and of Governors for the Australian States. To politicians their dependence upon the voters and upon anyone else really representing the voters is undesirable and conflicts with their power urge and power madness. I think that they deserve to be recalled much more often and also to be held responsible for their misdeeds and whenever they are obviously unable to deal with a problem or even to notice it. – Ideal would be the freedom for individuals and dissenting minorities to withdraw from the “benefits” and burdens their territorial politicians imposed upon them and to manage their own affairs quite independent from them, in whichever way they prefer for themselves, in societies truly based upon individual consent or preferences. - JZ, 13.5.93. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM, POWER ADDICTION, POLITICIANS, RECALL, VETO, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & COMPETITION FROM PERSONAL LAW COMMUNITIES

REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA: By all means, let individuals, minorities and even the majority opt out of the constitutional monarchic federation they find themselves in and establish their own kinds of republics for themselves on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy under personal laws, while leaving the remaining monarchists alone to do their things for or to themselves. But also make sure that the republicans remain free to opt out of their new and non-territorial republics as well, when they become disappointed by them. To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her own choice! None ought to be territorially imposed upon anyone. – JZ, 13.10.95, 9.5.08, 23.7.12.

REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA: Why either a republic for Australians or a constitutional monarchy? I find the debate all too one-sided on both sides. Why not both, a republic for the republicans and a monarchy for the monarchists? Why not learn from the experience of religious tolerance? Why not let individuals choose for themselves under which system they want to live? Why not permit individual sovereignty in this sphere, individual consumer sovereignty, through which everybody would get, at his expense and risk, what he desires for himself? Why not let the republicans or the monarchists secede - and all other kinds of dissenters as well? Why should there be only one federal government for all of Australia and only one State in every present State territory? We already favor experimental freedom in almost every other sphere. Why power only to “the people” (a wrongfully assumed single collective, in reality a very diverse mixture, with people from over 140 different ethnic backgrounds, apart from all their other differences), when in practice at best only a temporary majority gets to decide? Why not, instead, self-determination or self-management to all adult and rational individuals and their voluntary groups, societies and communities! Are even 2 Australians quite alike? Do all of us have the same preferences and ideas? Both sides in this debate want to territorially dominate the other and do quite wrongly assume that such a territorial domination would or could be rightful and necessary. Since tolerance worked in the sphere of religion, wherever and whenever it was seriously tried, let us try it in the political, economic and social sphere as well and this not only for republicans and for constitutional monarchists. – JZ, n.d., 11.5.08, 23.7.12.


REPUBLIC: A government which derives its just powers from the sanction of the victimized.” – L.A. Rollins, Lucifer’s Lexicon, p. 106. – That would be true only if it merely exterritorially represented all those as its voluntary subjects, who voted for it. The non-voters and those who voted for opposition parties, did not provide it with a mandate but rather tried to prevent it from becoming the territorial government or they were having so little expectations of it that they did not vote at all or, under compulsory voting, voted only informally and invalidly. – JZ, 15.5.08, 22.2.11. – DIS., VOLUNTARISM, SELF-GOVERNMENT, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, PERSONAL LAW SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES, SANCTION OF THE VICTIMS, GENUINE MANDATES INSTEAD OF TERRITORIAL IMPOSITIONS UPON WHOLE POPULATIONS.

REPUBLIC: Australia a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy? That would mean merely: More power to politicians, not more rights and liberties for Australians. And this while our politicians have already all too much power. A constitutional monarch or his or her Governor General can and does, sometimes, replace a power-mad politician. That is not enough of a guaranty against such politicians but is certainly better than nothing. I know of no case during the last 200 where an English monarch has abused his remaining powers in Australia. The time of absolute monarchies is long past. However, the Australian republicans should be free to secede from the monarchists in Australia and establish their Australian Federal and State republics or democracies for themselves. All other movements should be given the same right and opportunity. – JZ, 10.5.08, 23.7.12. - PANARCHISM

REPUBLIC: Should Australia become a republic? It would be truly republican and democratic to let those, who do want a republic, have it for themselves and those, who want a constitutional monarchy have it continued – but only for themselves. It would be truly in the spirit of constitutional monarchies to let the republicans have for themselves their kind of temporary and elected “monarchs” or Prime Ministers. – To each his own. Territorial political unity is not the Holy Grail. On the contrary, in a period of mass extermination devices it turns whole countries into targets for such mass murder devices or anti-people “weapons”. - JZ, 3.2.98, 9.5.08. – As many republics, democracies, monarchies or other forms of social organization as Australian volunteers want for themselves. All without a territorial monopoly and all only as long as they want them for themselves. – Voluntarism instead of territorialism! Individual choices instead of collectivist and territorialist choices imposed upon individuals and minorities! – In one word: Panarchism or Polyarchism, not merely multiculturalism and tolerance in the religious and private spheres! – JZ, 2.4.09, 22.2.11, 23.7.12.

REPUBLICANISM: Another case of false alternatives, confining our options to two choices. Human diversity rather demands: As many different republics and democracies as some people want for themselves and as many different monarchies or dictatorships or other authoritarian and more or less constitutional or restrained or total systems as diverse other people want for themselves - without, however, granting any of them any territorial monopoly that goes beyond their private and cooperatively owned real estate. - All to have only voluntary members and taxpayers and personal laws rather than territorial ones. Competing exterritorial rather than imposed territorial governments or societies and communities. - Need I stress that this option was not offered in the relatively recent Australian referendum on republicanism vs. constitutional monarchism? - JZ, 14.3.01, 2.2.02, 22.2.11. - REPUBLICANISM VS. MONARCHISM, PANARCHISM

REPUBLICANISM: It is a reality attested by all history that if a republic assumes imperial functions it will not remain a republic.” – Felix Morley (1894-1981), American Journalist, Educator and Author. - Republics and Democracies are misnomers, as long as they are based upon involuntary membership and territorial rule also over non-aggressive and non-criminal dissenters, who should not be automatically treated as part and parcel of “the people”, although they are, obviously, part of the population of a territory. – JZ, 3.1.08. - & IMPERIALISM DON’T MIX VERY WELL, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, PEOPLE

REPUBLICANISM: Republicans require and should get voluntary subjects only – apart from criminals with victims, aggressors, madmen, minors and the mentally deficient, who require guardians. – JZ, 30.7.98. - Why should republicans rule monarchists or monarchists rule republicans? To each his own! – JZ, 9.5.08. – Q.

REPUBLICANISM: superstitious faith in republics.” – Alexander Herzen, My Past and My Thoughts, XI, p.70. – I would rather say: Superstitious faith in territorialism and in imagined entities like “peoples” rather than appreciation of and respect for individuals and voluntary groups and their rights and liberties, even if one does not agree with them and their self-concerned actions. – JZ, 14.5.08, 2.4.09. – DEMOCRACY, PEOPLES, NATIONS, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM

REPUBLICANS: Democrats can never get any sleep because they are afraid somebody somewhere is making too much money. Republicans can never get any sleep because they are afraid somebody somewhere is having too much fun.” – Anonymous. Compare the similar remark by Andre Marrou, LP Presidential candidate: “Republicans don’t want anyone having more fun than they do, and the Democrats don’t want anyone making more money than they do. Libertarians want you to make money and have fun.” - To each the system he or she prefers for the own affairs! - To no party any territorial monopoly. - JZ, 22.2.11. - & DEMOCRATS, LIBERTARIANS, JOKES

REPUBLICS: A democracy is rule by the majority; a republic is the rule of law. This is a very critical distinction.” – Steven LaTulippe - Both, the majorities and the law can be quite wrong and often have been and are. Neither does or can justify injustices. Majorities should only rule majorities and leave minorities alone to rule themselves, exterritorially autonomous under personal law, which may be very different in different voluntary communities, societies and voluntary or competing governments, none with a territorial monopoly. Both, democrats and republicans, as well as political scientists, have largely failed to explore this peace- freedom and justice, progress and prosperity promoting as well as very educational and enlightening alternative, although it is merely the opposite to territorialism and its compulsory state membership or subordination. Genuine freedom lovers in both camps would have long ago full discussed and studied this simple and just - as well as liberating alternative. - JZ, 25. 11. 06, 23.7.12. - DEMOCRACIES, MAJORITIES, THE LAW, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, MAJORITY AUTONOMY AS WELL AS AUTONOMY FOR ALL MINORITIES, VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

REPUBLICS: Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” – John Marshall (1755-1835), Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court. - Both, republics and democracies have still all too much in common: E.g.: Compulsory membership or subjugation, territorialism, centralism, various monopolies, not only the postal one, nowadays also central banking, the suppression of all kinds of secessions, both are based on fictitious representation and all too much government power, in both of them not all the genuine individual rights and liberties are recognized and both produce an excessively "organized" chaos of laws and bureaucratic institutions. Their old and new party slogans and images are not truthful enough. - JZ, 25. 11. 06, 23.7.12. - DEMOCRACIES, ORDER & CHAOS, POWER, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

REPUBLICS: In a republic this rule ought always to be observed, that the greatest number should not have the predominant power.” – Cicero, De republica, II, ca. 50 B.C. - Even majorities have only the right to rule themselves and any aggressors or other criminals with victims, who acted against them. - JZ, 22.2.11. - POWER, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, MAJORITIES

REPUBLICS: The slightest acquaintance with history shows that powerful republics are the most warlike and unscrupulous of nations.” - Ambrose Bierce – Firstly, it is hardly ever the whole population which is unscrupulous and warlike. Secondly, there were rulers who were almost perpetually at war: Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon. Even Hitler was involved, apart from his constant civil war or tyranny, and internal mass murders, only for about half of the few years of his regime at war with other governments and their subjects, in WW II. – JZ, 30.3.09. - DEMOCRACIES & WAR, DIS.

RÉPUBLIQUE SUPRANATIONALE: Letters by H. L. Follin, Ulrich von Beckerath to Albert Einstein and his reply. From PEACE PLANS 585. On minority autonomy and individual secessionism. (The first letter had the handwritten note: 1922 unerledigt” (not dealt with) either by Einstein or his secretary. – JZ) - RÉPUBLIQUE SUPRANATIONALE, DIRECTOIRE CENTRAL, Siège pour 1922 : L’If. Orgerus (S.-et-O.) France. - Le Délégué aux Relations Générales, - À Monsieur le Professeur Albert EINSTEIN - Au soins de M. le Professeur Langevin au College de France, PARIS. - Salut! - Monsieur le Professeur, - Je profite de votre présence à Paris pour vous exprimer un voeu, celui de voir votre nom figurer dans notre Directoirs Central comme représentant à la fois l'élément de langue allemande et comme l'une des très rares figures dont le caractère réellement supranational permettra de faire de ce Directoire, lorsqu'il pourra s'appuyer sur une maise (??? Tipped over: masse? malse? – JZ)  importante de citoyens, un véritable Pouvoir Spirituel dont l'autorité morale s'imposera aux gouvernements. - Les deux documents ci-jointe vous mettront au courant de l'initiative que nous avons prise avec quelques ami. Elle est très simple : nous voulons, — d'une part, constituer la cohésion de tous les hommés décidés à faire prévaloir ce qui les unit sur ce qui les divise, -- d'autre part, donner à cette union la direction d'une élite composée d'un petit nombre d'individus, mais tous de nationalité différente et ayant tous donné des preuves d'absolue indépendanoe à l'égard de tout particularisms de nation, de race, de classe, de parti, de profession ou autre. - Parmi les hommes connue et amis (? Photocopy smear!) du public deux seulement nous semblent jusqu’ici réunir au degré que nous désirons ce caractère : le vôtre et celui de Rabindranath Tagore. — Vous êtes donc aussi les deux seules personnalités illustres qui nous approchions jusqu'ici , car nous cherchons (? Photocopy smear! – JZ) beaucoup moins à assurer à notre oeuvre le prestige le prestige de la célébrité de ses promoteurs, qu'à nous prémunir contre tout (??? Smeared!) danger de la voir défigurés. Mais il est évident que notre ffiulu (smeared – tiches, tachs?) sera grandement facilitée si nous pouvons réunir ces deux conditions; et votre concours nous permettra sans aucun doute (? Smeared!) de trouver dans les autres pays des membres de notre Directoire dont le caractère nous offre toute garantie, en même temps que leur nom vous assurers un voisinage non indigne de vous. - Nous serions trèx heureux de pouvoir nous entretenir avec vous de ce projet, et dans l'espoir d’un rendez-vous, je vous prie d’agréer l’expression de ma haute admiration. - (Signed) H. L. Follin. - Seule adresse nécessaire - H. L. FOLLIN, ORGERUS (Seine et Oise) - 104  - - - - Ulrich von Beckerath, Berlin NW 87, Lessingstrasse 56, Gartenhaus II. - - 21. July 1929. - - Herrn Professor Dr. A. Einstein, Berlin W 30, Haberlandstrasse 5. - - Sehr geehrter Herr Professor, - in der Anlage überreiche ich Ihnen das Programm der “Republique Supranationale”, der ich angehöre.    Die R S möchte Ihnen zunächst Ihre besondere Freude darüber ausdruecken, daß der prominenteste Vertreter der deutschen Wissenschaft gleichzeitig in der vordersten Reihe des Pazifismus steht. Aus vielen Ihrer Äußerungen haben nun meine Freunde von der R S den Eindruck gewonnen, daß die Grundsaetze der R S Ihnen wahrscheinlich besser gefallen werden, als die irgend einer andern pazifistischen Richtung,  wenn Sie Ihnen bekannt werden. - - Das Ziel der R S ist die Schaffung einer neuen Art von Minderheitenrecht. Vgl. Seite 48/49 der beiliegenden Broschüre. Rechte, welche bisher nur für nationale Minderheiten reklamiert wurden, verlangt die R S für jede Minderheit, und zwar bis zur Grenze des technisch und sozial Möglichen. Das Recht aus dem Staate austreten zu dürfen, wie man aus der Kirche austritt, ohne dadurch sein Aufenthaltsrecht und sein Arbeitsrecht zu verlieren, dürfte im gegenwärtigen Stadium des politischen Denkens jene Grenze darstellen. - Die R S wird geleitet von einem Comité Exécutiv Suprême. (Vgl. B.23.) - Diesem Comité sollen Personen verschiedener Nationalität angehoeren. Sie selbst, sehr geehrter Herr Professor, haben stets Ihre Zugehörigkeit zur Jüdischen Nation betont, ohne sich je in einen Gegensatz zur deutschen Nation oder einer andern zu stellen. Darüber hinaus aber haben Sie es abgelehnt, in Ihrer Nationalität aufzugehen, sondern haben einen durchaus supranationalen Standpunkt eingenommen. Alles dies, verbunden mit der Hochachtung, welche die R. S. Ihrer Person und Ihren Leistungen entgegenbringt, veranlaßt die R. S. Sie zu bitten, dem Comité Exécutiv Supréme beizutreten und zwar sous titre d'origine Judaique. - Zu jeder Aufklärung über die R S stehe Ich Ihnen zu jeder Zeit gern zur Verfügung. - Ich verbleibe mit Hochachtung Ihr sehr ergebener - gez.: U. v. Beckerath. (Actually, U. v. Bth., as a mathematician and statistician, was critical of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, held that he had mixed up several concepts of time in it and B. had also pointed out a 19th century mathematician, who had developed a formula for the maximum speed that exceeded the speed of light. B.s manuscript on this was never published but burnt with his library in an air raid on Berlin, in 1943. B.'s view on this was recently confirmed by some experiment that demonstrated the elementary particles could, sometimes and to some extent exceed the speed of light. Einstein was certainly not the foremost thinker on peace. I rather think that U. v. B. was, but that may be just my personal bias. - JZ, 5.10.11.) - - Ich überreiche Ihnen noch in der Anlage einen Aufsatz von de la Fouchardiere über Sie und den Durchschlag eines Briefes von Follin, dem Gruender der R. S., an de la F. - L'Oeuvre hat den Brief natürlich nicht abgedruckt. - Follin wandte sich dann an mich wegen Ihrer Adresse; ich antwortete ihm, daß sie es wahrscheinlich ablehnen wuerden, dem CES sous titre d'origin allemande beizutreten. Jedoch nicht dem obigen Vorschlag. Hiermit war Follin einverstanden. - Bth. - - - -  105 - - - - Copie de la  Lettre de H. L.FOLLIN à G. DE LA FOUCHARDIERE - - - Paris, 26/6/29 - - - Cher Monsieur, - Je salue comme vous le courage avec lequel Einstein vient d'accomplir un geste qui dépasse de beaucoup ce qu’ avait fait le malheureux Jaurès lui-même pour s'exposer aux haines patriotiques. - - Cependant ca geste n'est encore que le geste admirable, mais purement sentimental des "objecteurs de conscience" héros obscure que l'on voit sacrifier immédiatement leur tranquillité, leur liberté, leurs intérêts, leur foyer, en attendant d'y sacrifier éventuellement leur vie, à l'horreur du sang versé. - - Il reste à Einstein - et à bien d'autres, y compris vous-même et M. Lucien Franc - à accomplir  le geste rationnel, qui ne consiste pas seulement à se désintérenser en cas de guerre "des droits ou des torts quant à l'origine du conflit", mais à de désintéresser et à revendiquer le droit de se désintéresser dès le  temps de paix des fictions collectives par lesquelles led gouvernements prétendent rendre les individus nés ou habitant dans les divers pays solidaires des fatales conséquences (et des conséquences fatales) de leurs politiques nationales. Il lui reste à affirmer avec force, comme nous le faisons a la République Supranationale sans plus de soici que lui  des indignations des patriotes, qu'il entend être considéré comme homme avant de l'être comme Allemand, Français, Anglais ou Chinois, comme  homme avant  de l'être comme citoyen - que si ces qualités doiven (or ? – JZ) entrer en conflit, c'est la qualité  d'homme qu'il entend en toutes circonstances faire primer. Il lui reste à dénoncer la tyrannie des cultes politiques nationaux qui exigent des non-conformistes apolitiques supranationaux 1. - des obligations militaires, - 2. des contributions aux frais du culte qui leur est étranger, - 3. des restrictions à leur liberté de penser, de parler, d'écrire, de circuler, d'échanger. - - Il lui reste à combattre avec nous pour les affranchir de ces trois formes précises du culte tyrannique. Il lui reste à montrer à ses compatriotes l'absurdité d'un Stresemann, comme nous montre rions (first letter is over-typed and doubtful! – JZ) aux nôtres celle d'un Briand, parlant hieré - “d'économics française et allemande", comme s'il y avait d'autre  "économie" qu'une économie humaine, et ai  tout ce qui met des cloisons ont tre (ontre? – JZ) les honmes n'était pas anti-économique. - - Par votre intermédiaire, j 'offre publiquement à Albert Einstein, pour représenter non pas comme  dans tous les groupments "internationaux" la "nationalité”, mais l'origine allemande au Comité Exécutif Suprême de la R.S., la place laissée vacante par la mort prématurée de mon inoubliable ami Heinrich Nienkamp, qui l'eut lui, sans doute, admis parmi ses célèbres "Fuersten ohne Krone". (Published p.99 in "Einstein on Peace" - Nienkamp’s book, 1916, 1918, indexiert, 393 S., was published by me, in German, in PEACE PLANS 1043, together with some Notes by me. Beckerath also knew and appreciated Nienkamp, who celebrated inequality and talent in this book. – JZ, 9.12.04.) 107 - - - - (Translation of the above letter by Bth. an Einstein) - - - - Ulrich von Beckerath       - - - - 21st. of July, 1929, Berlin NW 87, Lessingstr. 56, Gartenhaus II, - - - - Prof. Dr. A. Einstein, Berlin W 30, Haberlandstr.5 - - - - Dear Professor, in the enclosure, I am sending you the program of the "Republique Supranationale", to which I belong. The RS would, first of all, like to express its great pleasure that the most prominent representative of German science stands, at the same time, in the front ranks of pacifism. From many of your public remarks, my friends of the RS gained the impression that the principles of the RS would, probably, once you become acquainted with them, please you more than those of any other pacifistic movement. - - - - The aim of the RS is the establishment of a new kind of minority rights. Compare pages 48/49 of the enclosed brochure. The RS demands rights that were so far demanded only for national minorities, for all kinds of minorities and this up to the limit of what is technically and socially possible. - - - - The right to secede from the State in the same way that one may withdraw one's membership from a Church, without thereby losing one's right of residence and right to work, will probably, seeing the present stage of political thinking, go to this limit. - - - -            The RS is directed by a Supreme Executive Committee. (Compare p. 23.) To this Committee should belong persons of different nationalities. You yourself, dear Professor, have always stressed your adherence to the Jewish people but without putting yourself in opposition to the German nation or to any other nation. Moreover, you have declined to wholly merge with your nationality but have, instead, taken up a quite supranational point of view. All this and the high respect which the RS has towards your personality and achievements, induced the RS to request you to join the Supreme Executive Committee, as a Jewish Representative. - - - - I am at any time prepared to supply you with more information on the RS. - - - - I remain faithfully yours, signed U. v. Beckerath. - - - - P.S.: I also enclose an essay by de la Fouchardiere on you and the copy of a letter by Follin, the founder of the RS, to de la F. Naturally, "L'Oeuvre" has not printed this letter. Thereupon, Follin asked me for your address. I replied that you would probably decline to join the Supreme Executive Committee as a Representative of Germany but not as a Jewish Representative. Follin agreed with this. - Signed: Bth. - - - - Einstein’s Antwort: Berlin, den 19.August 1929, nicht unterzeichnet, war: - Herrn Ulrich von Beckerath, … Sehr geehrter Herr! - Der von der "Republique Suprationale" eingeschlagene Weg scheint mir nicht der richtige zu sein. Der Staat ist doch nicht nur zum Kriegführen da, sondern bedeutet eine lokale Organisation zur Loesung höchst wichtiger ökonomischer und kultureller Aufgaben. Wenn es also wirklich möglich wäre, die Mehrzahl der Bewohner eines Gebietes von dem Staate loszutrennen, so würde dies entweder eine Vernichtung hoher organisatorischer Werte oder aber eine voellige Entrechtung der Majorität bedeuten. Es kommt mir ungefähr so vor, wie wenn man gegen die erblichen Krankheiten das Mittel der allgemeinen Kastration empfehlen wollte. - -  Mit vorzueglicher Hochachtung - - - - Translation of Einstein's reply: Berlin, 19th. of August, 1929 - Mr. Ulrich von Beckerath ... Dear Sir, - the road taken by the "Republique Supranationale" does not appear to be the right one to me. - The State exists not only for the conduct of wars but is a local organization for the solution of highly important economic and cultural tasks. If it were really possible to separate the majority of the inhabitants of an area from the State, then this would mean either the destruction of high organizational values or a complete loss of rights for the majority. - This appears to me almost as if one were to recommend against inherited diseases the means of a general castration. - Faithfully yours, (unsigned copy) - Has it ever provided any sound economic and cultural and solutions? - JZ, 5.10.11.) - - - - John Zube, 35 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW, Australia 2577, Dec. 12th, 1985 - NOTE ON THIS CORRESPONDENCE OF H. L. FOLLIN & U. V. BECKERATH WITH ALBERT EINSTEIN, (1879-1955) IN 1922 & 1929: I had written to Princeton University, hoping that I could get some correspondence between Ulrich von Beckerath and Albert Einstein, mainly regarding E's theory of relativity, on which Beckerath had written a book-length reply - which burned in an air raid on Berlin, together with most of B.'s library. I had enclosed photocopies of later references in B.'s correspondence relating to E.'s theories. - Instead of such correspondence, I received, and appreciated, the above 2 letters by Follin and one by B. regarding the Republique Supranationale, a forerunner of Werner Ackermann's Cosmopolitan Union, together with one all too short and unsatisfactory reply by Einstein to Beckerath. - - Follin and Ackermann had independently rediscovered the right of the individual to secede and had started organizations based on this idea. - Beckerath had found a reference to de Puydt's "Panarchy" in Wilhelm Roscher's writings and was aware of Spencers ideas on individual secession, I do not know since when. - B. told me that Follin died in great poverty. F.'s son collected his best ideas and reproduced them in "Paroles d'un Voyant”, 1934 (PEACE PLANS 322), of which I would still like to see a German and an English translation done and published, at least in this series. F. wrote a few other relevant works, long out of print, which I was so far unable to obtain and would like to see translated and included in this series. Ackermann is probably no longer alive, either. The last address I had of him, from which mail was finally returned, undelivered, was: Werner Ackermann, Hillcrest No. 2 (later PO Box 182), 33 Prospect Rd., Berea, Johannesburg, South Africa. - There is a tiny chance that his descendants will still possess Beckerath’s correspondence with him, in three thick arch lever files, on minority rights, individual secession and exterritorial and autonomous organization. But he had to flee from the Nazis and was probably unable to take them with him. (In this assumption I was wrong. He was forced to serve them and emigrated later to South Africa. - JZ, 5.10.11.) If he was able to do so, and they have been gathering dust there (or in some corner of German?) for ca. 50 years, it would be insofar tragic as these ideas could have turned an oppressive, imposed and territorial Apartheid, frowned upon widely not only in South Africa but in the rest of the world, into a rightful, because voluntary and exterritorial Apartheid, combined with a rightful, because voluntary and exterritorial, integration for those who desired it. - So far only the core of the Apartheid idea is correct, namely: independent development for all ethnic groups that desire it. - Among these autonomous groups should be at least one, which believes in racial integration. - But on a territorial basis this ideal could not be realized. It could only lead to one group dominating with police and military force, in fear of losing its independence to revolutionaries and terrorists, who want to be top dogs instead, and to territorial separatism with severe acts against "aliens" outside their assigned national or ethnic territories. - - If a fraction of the efforts spent to dig for gold and diamonds, some kilometers below ground level, had been spent on digging out these fundamental insights and proposals, discussing them, proving and realizing them, S.A. might, have become, long ago, a model for a free, peaceful and just society, for the rest of the world. - - Perhaps there is still a small chance to dig this treasure out, ending further oppression and bloodshed and preventing the rise of a black dictatorship, one that would lead to even more prosecution and bloodshed, with little chance for liberty for generations to come. - Otherwise, without this lost literary treasure, we will simply have to do with the short discussions and hints remaining in Beckerath's correspondence, the discussions in this series and some other recent thinking along these lines, which is, alas, usually not as far advanced in this respect as B.'s was. - I can imagine that B. did not bother with a reply to E.'s very unsatisfactory answer. - E. was, apparently, unaware that the principle involved in conscientious objection can a) be extended, so that the C.O.s would become neutrals and organized as neutrals and b) be applied not only towards coercive membership in armed forced but e.g. to membership in schools, unions and States. - E. was very far from being an anarchist or libertarian but reveals himself here as an outright Statist. And at that time regimes like that of Lenin, Mussolini and Stalin had already existed for years. (Not that any of the large democratic States, are quite the opposite of totalitarian States, since they, too, are territorially imposed and maintained States. - JZ, 5.10.11.) - Lenin had imposed the death penalty upon "renunciation of the republic". - Jewish "territorialists" (wanting exterritorial autonomy in the territory of the former Russian Empire and adopting, for this, this eminently unsuitable name) represented a considerable section of enlightened public option, in opposition to the Zionists aiming at a territorial State in the “Holy Land”. - The Nazis had already made their first putsch. Thus individual secessionism should have been treated by E. with some more interest, understanding and objectivity. - E. could not, I believe, have given any examples of "important economic and cultural tasks" which States had solved, even after establishing X organizations for this purpose and throwing huge funds and manpower resources at them. - Moreover, the question is not one of separating the majority of an area and against its will, from an old regime, but allowing each and every non-aggressive individual to secede. - In democratic countries this would mean that only the various minorities would - 110 - peacefully secede but in totalitarian countries the majority would. - He doubts the possibility of such a separation, probably due to ignorance of historical precedents. - If Jewish dissenters in Germany and Europe had been free to secede from the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany and from other European States, in which they were not welcome enough, in many instances, to be granted asylum, when they fled from the Nazis, then they would have acted within their rights and their duties towards their descendants and they would have done nothing wrong, thereby, towards those they seceded from. But in spite of having lived more in a cosmopolitan and exterritorial way than most other people had, the only alternative to territorial oppression, that most of them could imagine, was the setting up of an independent territory for themselves, by setting the clock back 2000 years. - What "high organizational values" are there in compulsory membership and in territorial organization (which offers now the "final solution" for all, in form of nuclear “weapons” and “targets”)? - Is it desirable that majorities can vote against or otherwise oppress the rights of minorities? - Should any laws or constitutions be imposed upon any non-consenting individuals? - If there is such a high value in this form of organization, why don't we make the membership in all clubs and associations compulsory for all? - Einstein brought not a single example for the values he imagined to exist. - And how would the remaining majority be deprived of its rights when the seceding minority does its own thing or if several minorities do? - And why should a minority or a majority that has seceded, lose all its rights, when it seceded and organized autonomously and exterritorially - precisely in order to uphold its rights? - What kind of despotism does E. advocate here? - Just the conventional one, which he had unthinkingly adopted. - - We have here, again, an instance of the consent of the victims, of prosecuted people subscribing to some of the most basic premises of those who prosecute them (here faith in territorial and legal unity, exclusive rule and jurisdiction in a whole country, majoritarianism and collective responsibility) however much they do otherwise differ from their prosecutors, as humanitarian democrats rather than as totalitarian oppressors and aggressors. - - His comparison of inherited territorial laws and constitutions with inherited diseases does to some extent fit. - (JZ, 9.12.04: Here, alas, I had misunderstood and misrepresented his argument. The argument does not fit individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers but, rather, the territorial monopoly organizations with compulsory membership and subordination, i.e., precisely what he approves of. - If his physics is as unsound as his politics … Bth. believed this was the case and wrote a book-length manuscript to prove it, which was, alas, destroyed in an air raid.) - But science is all the time looking for cures. And are laws and constitutions, to which we have not given our consent or do no longer give our consent, really part of our nature, like an inherited disease is, until a cure is found? - Should we not be free to separate ourselves from it, if we can, e.g. by a surgical operation? - Should we not be free to renounce and reject it for ourselves, if possible, leaving it to those who imagine they could benefit from it? - Should there be no right to renounce an inheritance that is not an asset but a burden? - - Naturally, if all have opted out, who preferred exterritorial self-rule to territorial rule by others, only the territorialists would remain in the old statist institution and national borders. Then and there they could continue to rule themselves - but no longer others - under the old territorial laws. - In reality they would also have become an exterritorial and autonomous association of volunteers, like the Catholic Church, from which Protestant Churches have freely seceded. - And what would secession have to do with castration? Only that power-mad people would be deprived of their power over dissenters. But does this "deprivation" deserve the term "castration"? Why should the bureaucrats, politicians and other dictocrats, that one has seceded from, feel castrated? Those they had formerly raped, just once too often, would finally have resisted, not by slaying or mutilating their tormentors but by merely rendering them impotent to repeat this crime against the secessionists, by undertaking a legal and constitutional separation from them, one in accordance with international law. - As long as these aggressors would still find voluntary, non-protesting or non-seceding victims, they could go on raping these. In this respect they would not be rendered impotent or feel castrated. On the contrary, now being alone, among their own, they could enjoy the benefits of unanimous support. All their subjects and victims would then be volunteers, which, as long as their faith is maintained, would give them more power or potency over them. - - I would rather say that the body of a people would have the right to secede or separate itself from a tumor or cancer - one in form of a parasitic and tyrannical clique that threatens its freedom, health and survival. - In such a case the potency of the tumor to survive on its own should not be taken into consideration at all. (Or, one would hope, that the cancer or tumor, of their own flawed theories and practices, would soon disposed of them. - JZ, 5.10.11.) - - What would be castrated, abolished or destroyed by the Fichte / Spencer / Molinary / de Puydt / Follin / Ackermann / Beckerath / et al type of panarchistic, pluralistic, mutualistic, libertarian, anarchistic, secessionist or voluntaryist reform, would be the domination of other people (who are peaceful) and without their consent. - This would merely uphold the old doctrine that no one is good enough to rule another without the other person's consent. - - Jewish people have suffered more than most from prosecution as "aliens". They would never have wronged anybody by merely setting up a fully autonomous exterritorial State within other States. On the contrary, they would have taught the world a necessary lesson on peaceful coexistence. - - Like many other famous specialists, E. also demonstrated the "barbarism of specialists", by presuming to be an authority in spheres outside of his competence. Outside of his sphere (like many other specialists, who know more and more of ever less. - JZ, 5.10.11.) he expressed quite primitive, incorrect and unexamined notions, and thus and in this sphere did not promote but rather retard enlightenment. He shared these notions with millions of others, many of them almost as famous as he was and still is. - - Herbert Spencer in the 19th. chapter of "Social Statics" (The Right to Ignore the State), brilliantly refutes Einstein's and similar objections against individual secessionism. And so did Fichte in his 1793 contribution on the French Revolution and de Puydt in his essay "On Panarchy". - - I have not had the opportunity to be able to read the program of the "Republique Supranationale" but have no doubt, from Beckerath's hints, that it would NOT have given any good reasons for being so much misunderstood. - As Beckerath points out, nothing but a consistent extension of human rights and minority rights is required. - - History could have taken another turn if a man like Einstein had been open-minded towards panarchist ideas from 1922 onwards or at least from 1929 onwards and had become a spokesman for them. - - Instead, he did advocate, at one stage, one consistent conclusion from territorial nationalism, namely, the development of anti-nation or anti-people mass murder weapons. - - How could he, as member of a persecuted minority, as a victim of the principle of collective responsibility, recommend the ultimate means to impose collective responsibility? - Nazis and other totalitarians developed Einstein's (and hundreds of millions of other people's, unthinking attitude in this respect) territorialist and statist notions, consistently, towards their kinds of oppressive and mass-murderous regimes. - And most of those "democrats" who favor nuclear and other mass murder devices, remain still unaware that in this respect they are the "intellectual" heirs of Nazism. - The average man and the "intellectuals" of our time do, as a rule, give the exterritorial and voluntaristic alternative even less consideration than Einstein did. But, perhaps, the rather obvious errors of this famous thinker, in his short reply, will somehow help others, at least now, to pay more attention to the panarchistic solution. - 111 & 112. - Slightly edited: JZ, 5.10.11. – DIS., Q.

REPUTATIONS: The value of a person’s reputation.” – It consists of different opinions in the heads of other people, sometimes many, sometimes only a few. These opinions belong to them. No one is entitled to any particular opinion concerning himself in the minds of others. Others may not think of us at all or may think nothing of us. That does not give us the right to complain, either. Let us face it, people’s opinions on any subject and any person do greatly differ. We should learn to put up with that. “Sticks and stones can hurt my bones but mere words can never [really] hurt me.” - A lawyer stated on the libel laws: “A law for the rich and the politicians. A law for the people who can afford it.” – Individuals and groups should be free to opt out of the libel legislation as well. Those who favor it should be free to practise it among themselves. – JZ, 28.9.93, 11.5.08. - FAME, DEFAMATION, SLANDER, LIBEL, PROPERTY.

RESEARCH: Research is so important that its selection and financing should certainly no longer and all too largely depend on politicians and bureaucrats. These officials have their own special interests, agendas and priorities, often quite contrary to those of their subjects and victims. While any compulsory territorial State membership or subordination, with its tribute leveis, still exists, all research funding should at least become voluntary to the extent that the individual taxpayers get themselves to decide on the use of their own tax contributions, e.g. for some special research or education or welfare project – from a comprehensive budget covering all governmental expenditures. Items not widely enough sponsored in this way by the taxpayers (a certain minimum number of them) should become automatically dropped by the government from the next budget. Consumer sovereignty should decide here, too, not the whim or the self-interest of politicians or bureaucrats as dispensers of stolen funds. - Ending the territorial government monopoly through introducing freedom for all peaceful and honest citizens (nor for criminals with involuntary victims) to choose individually and for themselves the kind of government or society that they prefer for themselves, would, indirectly, promote only those researches which these volunteers really wish do be undertaken on their behalf and at their expense. – As far as wrongs and evils as e.g. mass unemployment, inflation, wars, terrorism, violent revolutions and civil wars and involuntary poverty are concerned, the main requirement for research and its application in these spheres seem be to me: 1.) Complete freedom to publish and discuss all ideas, opinions, proposals and suggestions in this sphere, as cheaply and widely as possible. This could now be done electronically, extremely cheaply per page, per book or even thousands to millions of books on powerful disks or even a single one only, also affordably via email attachments and websites that point out the URLs to all special and wanted information offered somewhere online or in other electronic forms. - - 2.) Full experimental freedom for volunteers to practise among themselves any kind of innovation that they prefer, at their own risk and expense, quite independent of all territorial institutions, laws, regulations, jurisdictions and constitutions. - - 3.) No copyrights for all such information and e.g. all health and longevity research information. - - However, while compulsory taxation still exists, taxpayers should be free to fully deduct from their taxes all their donations to providers of such health and life information, that they themselves selected and also to providers of information on how to solve all other kinds of social, economic and political problems. - The value or quality of such information is not to be decided upon by politicians and bureaucrats and their laws, rules, decisions and institutions, but by the taxpayers and donors themselves. ("Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.) Within exterritorially autonomous communities such democratic decision-making would mostly occur automatically, just like their taxes or contributions would be voluntary through their voluntary membership and individual secession option. – - Under this publicity and experimental freedom and voluntary fund allocation - all remaining problems like wars, civil wars, despotism, terrorism, mass unemployment, inflation, involuntary poverty, injustices, monopolism, exploitation, money shortages, economic crises, could become rapidly solved and the solutions could also rapidly spread through voluntary adoption. - JZ, 21.6.84, 14.5.08. - FINANCING RESEARCH, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, MARKETING RESEARCH EFFORTS, TAXATION, GRANTS, GOVERNMENTS, BUREAUCRACY, COPYRIGHTS, PUBLICITY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SCIENCE, SOCIAL SCIENCES, HEALTH, LIFE EXTENSION, MEDICINES, CURES.

RESEARCH: That research and development should not be entrusted to or financed by territorial governments is already indicated by the fact that in some countries half of these funds go to developing even more destructive and mass murderous “weapons”. – JZ, 10/76, after re-reading THE BULLETIN, April 26, 75, p. 40. – SCIENCE, SUBSIDIES, FINANCING, ARMS RACE, WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT, MILITARY ABUSE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,

RESEARCH: The more science is left to itself the better. State interference with science is more likely to mean obstruction than progress.” – The Speaker and Debater, Teach Yourself Books, p. 156. – And more destruction than construction. Also many more mass murders than genuine liberation attempts.– JZ, 6.5.08. – NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, LIBERATION, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, WAR & PEACE AIMS, WARFARE, SCIENCE, BUREAUCRACY, WARFARE STATE

RESEARCH: The trouble is, our taxpayers are conditioned to think of ‘research’ as what is done in universities by people with government grants. Actually, research is what was done by the Wright brothers - with their own money.” – Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., letter to ANALOG, 2/99, p.142. – Probably most worthwhile research is still done privately, at the own expense and risk, but much less published than governmentally sponsored and financed research. The latter provided us with ABC mass murder devices. – JZ, 10.5.08. – For all the problems, which territorial governments created with their legalized interventionism and which the territorial governments are, obviously, unable to solve by their further interventionist attempts, there exist already, somewhere, genuine solutions, by private groups or individuals, still insufficiently known, because they are insufficiently publicized e.g. in an ideas archive. Territorial governments do all ignore these solutions, even when they are still published somewhere, in some medium or accessible in some public libraries. – JZ, 23.7.12.

RESERVATIONS: By now Welfare States, their bureaucracies, immigration restrictions, "protectionism", controls, regulations and laws have reduced most Americans, Australians, Canadians etc. to a very large extent to the status of natives of "reservations". Only that their reservations are much larger. But they are similarly mismanaged and give their victims as little choice, liberties and rights. By living all too long under "reservation conditions" or in nation-wide "concentration camps", they become similarly helpless, impoverished, disabled, ignorant and prejudiced, all as a result of officials wanting to "help" them - and also themselves (to salaries and pensions at the expense of their victims, that are sometimes much larger in their total than the handouts they provide at the expense of their victims, their tax slaves or the feudal serfs of the modern bureaucracy). – JZ, n.d. & 23.7.12. - RESERVATION AMERICANS OR RESERVATION RED INDIANS OR ABORIGINALS – ALL OF US! TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, BUREAUCRACY, MODERN FEUDALISM OR SERFDOM, POWER, GOVERNMENTS, STATISM, CONCENTRATION CAMPS

RESERVATIONS: Maybe we should not have humored them [American Indians] when they asked to live on reservations. Maybe we should have said, No, come join us. Be citizens along with the rest of us.” - Ronald Reagan – Better still: Live under your own laws and institutions. You do not need a separate territory for that. Run all your own affairs like the religious people run theirs, under your own personal law. But they should have been granted the same right to acquire, keep and utilize land that the “white” man claimed, largely at the expense of the Red Indians. – No race or life style should be granted exclusive rights to whole territories. – By now that kind of system has lead to the mass murder and mass destruction devices. – JZ, 8.8.08, 23.7.12. - RED INDIANS, ABORIGINALS, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

RESERVATIONS: Of e.g. Red Indians, Australian Aborigines and Eskimos: Usually they have all too limited autonomy and suffered under the supposedly benevolent administration of bureaucratic white administrators for many decades. In our times they have been greatly expanded and often extensively subsidized or suffered under their own native and corrupt administrators. Full autonomy was never granted to them, to my knowledge. That would e.g. have meant exemption from all taxes and tariffs and from all monetary despotism. – JZ, n.d.

RESIGN: Resign your State membership or Nationality.” – JZ, 9/72. – If you can afford to do that. Alas, most people cannot as yet, because their independence will not be recognized by the territorial politicians in power. They would deprive you of even more rights and liberties than they did whilst you were still formally their member or subject. – Non-territorial secessionists, even while making no territorial claims, should be numerous, well organized, armed and trained enough to rightfully defend all their rights and liberties against their former territorial masters. – JZ, 14.5.08. – MILITIA, RECOGNITION OF & PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, SECESSION, RECALL, ABDICATION, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES

RESIGNING FROM THE STATE: I have a hundred times wished that one could resign life (*) as an officer resigns a commission.” – Robert Burns, Letter to Mrs. Dunlop, Jan. 21, 1788. –  (*) I would replace “life” by: “from the State”. Allow subjects and taxpayers to resign their "commissions" their territorial subjugation as tax slaves and serfs. Allow them to throw off statist burdens and benefits and become self-responsible, alone or in association with other and like-minded people. The territorial State isn’t society. It is rather anti-social and prevents many solutions which free societies could and would soon provide for themselves – i.e. for own voluntary members. Panarchism would simply replace territorial statism by self-responsible and tolerant experimental freedom. We could expect the same benefits from this reform as we experienced from Protestantism and from scientific, technical, literary and artistic experimentation. – JZ, 5.7.86.  Only the incurably ill and incapacitated would want to resign from a truly free life. They should be free to make “living wills” if they should ever fall into such a condition and would be unable to commit suicide without the assistance of someone else. –  However, they should not rely on their family doctor or upon one or two conventional specialists, either, to ascertain their incurability. Via their own researches they might come to find that cures even for their troubles do already exist, recorded somewhere, for decades.  On their own conditions they can become more knowledgeable than the professional and orthodox specialists. There are e.g. some cancer and cold cures not yet recognized by most professionals. – An ideas archive is needed for such and other important ideas. - JZ, 5.7.86, 9.1.99. – So far not even comprehensive digitized encylopaedias on health and life extension have been compiled and put online or on discs. Instead, we have thousands of all too limited and flawed printed health books – all copyrighted, too! – JZ, 23.7.12. INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, RESIGNATION OF OFFICERS.

RESISTANCE: Against despotic and authoritarian governments there is still all too little well organized, motivated, financed and effective resistance. Most people even refuse altogether to ponder the requirements for such resistance. The communists did at least take themselves serious enough to work out details of their kind of “revolutions” and “liberations”. – JZ, 14.11.86, 24.10.07. – The totalitarian communists had worked out their kind of “revolution” program so well that they were quite confident that they could take over any existing State as soon as they had won over ca. 7% of its population to their “cause”. Alas, anarchists and libertarians have not taken themselves as serious, although on most points they do have a rightful and much better platform. But both, their enlightenment programs and their tolerance for free experiments among their opponents still leaves very much to be desired, also their revolution and defence programs directed against dictatorships. Instead, we get now all too much popular resistance against the degrees of free trade that territorial governments managed to agree upon, all under the banner of a quite irrational and immoral “anti-Globalism” of mostly quite ignorant and prejudiced people, who want to force their notions and “ideals” upon all others, instead of applying them only tolerantly among themselves, at their own risk and expense. Free Trade for all Free Traders – Protectionism only for all Protectionists, neither to be imposed upon whole populations or whole countries. – JZ, 30.3.09. Naturally, also any form of anarchism or libertarianism for any kind of anarchists and libertarians, together with any kind of statism for the large majorities of all remaining statists and all their diverse factions. – That would be a rightful application of the old principle: Divide and rule! With it self-rule or self-determination could be achieved for all – only the wrongful territorial claims, so far raised or upheld by all, would have to be “sacrificed”. That would hardly be a “sacrifice”, seeing the degrees of liberty and rights each group of volunteers could then achieve and maintain as well as increase – among themselves. – JZ, 23.7.12. -  AGAINST DESPOTISM, PANARCHISM & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

RESISTANCE: I rebel, therefore I am.” - Camus, quoted in NEW YORK TIMES, October 29, 1967. - Individual and group secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for the secessionists would introduce much more peaceful and just conditions and obviate the need for future collectivist and territorial rebellions, replacing all of them, in essence, by one-man revolutions and peaceful reforms among volunteers only. - JZ, 26.11.02, 30.3.09. - REVOLUTION, REBELLION, SELF-REALIZATION, PANARCHISM, NON-VIOLENCE

RESISTANCE: It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.” - Thomas Jefferson, ISIL LIBERTY QUOTE LIBRARY 03. – Also ascribed to Dr. Benjamin Rush, 1803. - Not only liberty of belief, conscience, expression and information and other classical basic liberties should be defended. More important still are e.g. liberty of action and experimentation, in the sphere of political and economic systems, which would make possible peaceful coexistence in the same territories of the most diverse kinds of people, institutions, methods, systems and practices, all becoming mere private and consensual activities among their members, all only volunteers. – JZ, 8.1.08, 30.3.09. - Freedom of conscience is just one of many liberties and rights that ought to be recognized and defended. It goes against my conscience to be subjected to imposed tributes, laws and statist institutions. – JZ, 13.7.94, 10.5.08. - LIBERTY, CONSCIENCE, RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF ACTION, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT IN EVERY SPHERE NOW MONOPOLIZED BY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS.

RESISTANCE: It is the resistance that puts us on our mettle: it is the conquest of the reluctant stuff that educates the worker. I wish you enough difficulties to keep you well and make you strong and skillful!” – Henry Van Dyke, quoted by L. E. READ, Notes from FEE, 9/71. As if legalized or illegal resistance to quite rightful, tolerant and rational actions would not all too often be overwhelming and destructive. At least it wastes all too much time, energy and money, compared with full freedom for all to innovate at their own risk and expense, under personal law, i.e., exterritorially autonomous, alone or together with like-minded volunteers. – How many innovators were totally frustrated, imprisoned or even murdered? – JZ, 30.0.09. - DIFFICULTIES, DANGERS, DIS., IDEAS ARCHIVE, TALENT CENTRE, ‘RELEASE ALL CREATIVE ENERGIES!’ DIS., Q.

RESISTANCE: Part of that spirit may feed on the earthy American feeling that “they can’t put everybody in jail!” Or, in short, there is safety in numbers when it comes to fighting City Hall, or the White House itself.” – Karl Hess, The Lawless State, p.28. – How often would that be necessary if all non-criminal and non-aggressive people were freed to secede and establish exterritorially autonomous personal law communities of volunteers? Prevention is always better than the best cure. – JZ, 6.5.08.

RESISTANCE: Present society is based on resistance to evil. – Yes, to some extent. But to a large extent it is also based on resistance to good (e.g. full monetary freedom and voluntary taxation) and to supposed wrongs, which are no wrongs. (E.g. individual and minority group secessionism and voluntary membership in non-territorial States and communities.) – JZ, 16.6.84, 6.5.08. There are many wrongful territorial governments which deserve not only to have their secrets revealed but also many kinds espionage, treason, disobedience and rightful resistance actions, from unarmed to armed and militarily organized ones, including military insurrections, not only non-violent resistance. Most freedom struggles would be greatly reduced and most wrongful powers could become much easier dissolved through individual and groups secessionism, with all remaining societies and communities becoming confined to their volunteers under personal law or full exterritorial autonomy. - JZ, 22.2.11. – Who would still desperately fight against that option for himself and all others? – JZ., 23.7.12. - DIS., Q.

RESISTANCE: Resist much. Obey little. Think for yourself.” - William Thomas – And let others do their own things! – Thereby you reduce or even abolish resistance against your own self-help efforts. - JZ - OBEDIENCE, DISOBEDIENCE, THINK, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, AUTONOMY FOR ALL

RESISTANCE: Resistance to tyranny is service to God.” – James Madison – There should be freedom for all peaceful people to resist any impositions upon them – simply by allowing them to opt out or withdraw and then to do their own things freely among themselves. We practice this kind of panarchism already a thousand-fold in all the minor affairs of our own private lives. But we are not yet accustomed to think about it in spheres which territorial governments have so far quite wrongfully and irrationally monopolized for themselves and usually severely mismanage at our own risk and expense. – JZ, 30.3.09, 22.2.11. - RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY BY FREE SECESSIONISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, STATISM ONLY FOR THE STATISTS. AUTHORITARIANISM ONLY FOR THE AUTHORITARIANS THEY FOLLOWERS

RESISTANCE: Right of Revolution: Governments being instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the whole community and not for the interests or emoluments of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means or redress ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to, reform the old or establish a new government. (*) The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” – New Hampshire Bill of Rights, 1784, article 10. - (*) Or as many governments or societies as they like, all without a territorial monopoly! – JZ, 6.5.08.

RESISTANCE: screw every government you can, before they do you.” – GEGENSCHEIN, No. 34. – Why provoke them unnecessarily? Rather secede from them, exterritorially, if you can. – JZ, 20.10.08. – The statists, too, do have the right to rule themselves, but only exterritorially, under their own personal laws. – JZ, 2.4.09. – TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

RESISTANCE: the decided resistance of a respectable minority is sufficient to nullify a law for all practical purposes; …” - Lysander Spooner, on the postal monopoly, in Works I, p.33. – [The results will be penalty enough for them! – JZ, 23.7.12.] Peaceful, non-criminal and non-aggressive individuals and dissenting minorities - of whatever kind - should also get, quite formally, the basic right to ignore territorial laws, institutions and to secede altogether from whole territorial governments and to do their own things for and to themselves, under personal laws, as man has done for most of his unwritten and part of his written history. – This amounts to a basic right and liberty still missing in all State constitutions. – JZ, 6.5.08, 22.2.11, 23.7.12.

RESISTANCE: The era of resisting big government is never over.” – Paul Gigot (1998) - It will be over when all territorial governments, large and small ones, have been transformed into governments or societies that are all only exterritorially autonomous and have voluntary members only. - JZ, 22. 11. 06. - How many important truths can we afford to overlook? - JZ, 22.2.11. - REVOLUTION & BIG GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, DIS., Q.

RESISTANCE: The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.” – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1846), U.S. President, Letter to Abigail Adams, (Mrs. John Adams), Paris, 22 February 1787 – Quoted by Frank Chodorov, Fugitive Essays, p.290. – In Seldes, The Great Quotations: “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it always to be kept alive … “ - Once all governments are reduced to exterritorial autonomy and voluntary members only, one does no longer have to resist them, as a rule, but could simply opt out from under them. And in that situation aggressive communities of volunteers will also become rare to impossible. If they should occur, they will soon find overwhelming resistance from all the other communities of volunteers and from quite rightful militia forces of volunteers for the protection of genuine individual rights and liberties – to the extent that these are claimed by volunteers for themselves. – I doubt that one should try to militarily assist those who believe only in absolute non-violent resistance. – But one should offer asylum to those, who managed to escape their victimizers. – Also prizes should be put on the heads of the aggressors. - JZ, 6.5.08. (As Thomas More, 1478-1535, in his "Utopia" suggested, they should be doubled if the offenders could be brought before a genuine court of justice. - JZ, 22.2.11.) - Individual secessionism, voluntary associationism and personal law under exterritorial autonomy would permit even individuals to engage in quite rightful one-man "revolutions, that would revolutionize only their own affairs, as much as they want to and can stand. – JZ, 30.3.09. - TOWARDS TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

RESISTANCE: There is ultimately only one effective safeguard against psychopathology and delinquency in office, and that is, sane, effective, public resistance, backed by a disciplined individual willingness to disobey when necessary.” – Alex Comfort, Authority & Delinquency, p.118. – Individual and group secessionism, combined with exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, should also be an option. Whenever it is, most other resistance actions would be superfluous. - JZ, 22.2.11. - DISOBEDIENCE, SECESSIONISM

RESISTANCE: Though I am prepared to bow loyally to the Will of the People, whether I personally agree with it or not, I, like all other citizens, have a right, nay a duty, to do my best to bring the Will of the People in accord with what I hold to be right, just, and likely to promote the welfare of the nation. I retain, that is, the right to convert, if I can, a minority view into a majority view. If any section of the people try to prevent me from exercising this right of conversion, then I believe that the sacred right of insurrection arises.” - John St. Loe Strachey, 1922, a British journalist, 1860-1927. - The “people” and the “will of the people” and the “nation” are also no more than delusions – unless one confines these concepts to genuine communities of volunteers only. As such they do not need, nor are they or is anyone else entitled to any territorial sovereignty but merely to full exterritorial autonomy for all their volunteers, as long as they do not interfere with the exterritorial autonomy of the voluntary members of other communities, as some fanatics and fundamentalists are now inclined to do, still motivated largely by territorial and thus intolerant notions. Since this was possible to achieve in the sphere of religion, it should be possible to achieve this concerning political, economic and social ideologies as well. – JZ, 6.5.08, 23.7.12. – INSURRECTIONS, PEOPLE, MAJORITY, MINORITIES, REVOLUTIONS, NON-CONFORMISM, DISSENTERS

RESISTANCE: To resist the conditions of the day is never foolish, for while they may alter they need not necessarily change for the better.” – Georg Christoph Lichtenberg. – Another approach, one that one should systematically work for, is the possibility to opt out, withdraw, secede and do one’s own things, even in those spheres presently still territorially monopolized by governments. Since this action would not directly threaten or attack the establishment – except for its monopolistic and coercive territorial nature, which cannot be morally and rationally defended – it is the rightful, tolerant, rational and easiest way towards self-liberation, just like self-education and self-enlightenment are, whenever and wherever they are possible. We do have great precedents: Religious tolerance and much exterritorial autonomy already in private affairs, e.g. consumer sovereignty. There are also remnants of the ancient personal law tradition. Just whole political, economic and social systems are still wrongly and territorially monopolized by governments. Their territorial impositions have bred much dissatisfaction and opposition. There are also already some international corporations that are larger and more powerful than some territorial States are. Thus a panarchistic alliance of all secessionists with these corporations seems feasible. – As well as with all existing minority groups, especially the world's would-be nations, to the extent that they would be satisfied with exterritorial autonomy for them. (Graham Wood, in THE AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW,, 14.5.10, from FOREIGN POLICY, Jan/Feb. 10, wrote over 2pp on them, mentioning many of them. Their greatest mistake is to strive for territorial nationhood. Probably they do not yet know about the exterritorial alternative. If all of them were approached with the panarchist alternative, one or several might seriously try it. In that form they would certainly encounter much less resistance. - JZ, 22.2.11.) Full exterritorial autonomy for all who desire it for themselves and are prepared to respect it in others. – Such a program will only rarely encounter desperate resistance. – E.g. only by secret police forces, whose members fear for their lives. At least in some cases even they should probably be granted anonymity and amnesty or an escape option. – It may not be worthwhile to risk further lives in order to militarily defeat them. - JZ, 6.5.08. – An international federation of all minorities, which would be satisfied with exterritorial autonomy for their volunteers, does have at least the potential to become the most influential movement in the world, the one with the largest number of members and the least offensive, aggressive, violent, criminal and terrorist one. Seeing this, one could almost call for subsidies for them, from territorial governments, which sponsor as relatively unimportant events like sports events, cultural festivals etc. However, these do not threaten their wrongful territorial monopolies with fundamental competition. - The Tea Party in the US, now also in Australia and in Japan, seems still all too far removed from this approach. It represents in its the usual internal faction fighting of revolutionaries that consist of many very diverse groups, that have only their dissatisfaction with the territorial establishment in common but no consistently rightful, sensible and complete liberation program in common. - JZ, 22.2.11. - PANARCHISM, MULTINATIONALS, MINORITIES, TEA PARTY

RESISTANCE: To the States, or any one of them, or any city of the States, Resist much, obey little!” – Walt Whitman, Caution, 1860. – He, too did, probably, not recognize the right of individuals and minority groups to secede and do their own things exterritorially, although, if he was a homosexual, then he did this, already in his private sphere, secretly, regardless of contrary laws. Every smuggler and other black market activist does the same and no territorial government was so far able to suppress all of them. Criminals with involuntary victims and all kinds of terrorists are also a kind of "successful" but, alas, quite wrongful secessionists. I doubt very much that -under the competitive protection of individual rights by panarchies and rightful militias -they would be as successful as they are now, when crime all too often pays for all too long. – The Mafia, too, and other organized criminal syndicates and secret societies do successfully engage in numerous activities that are merely outlawed but have only voluntary participants, no involuntary victims. (However, in defence of this free exchange option they do commit many violent crimes, sometimes just to defend their turf for committing these exchanges against other such societies. Insofar they act still like territorial States.)  Should all the decent, non-criminal, non-aggressive people really be unable to liberate themselves, in accordance with their own individual choices and to defend their preferences against all kinds of aggressors, criminals and oppressors? - As territorialists they remained their own worst enemies. - JZ, 6.5.08, 22.2.11, 23.7.12.

RESISTANCE: We have not conquered, but we have battled; we have not broken tyranny, but we have halted its advance; we have not saved our country, but we have defended it; and when one day our history is written we shall be able to say that we have resisted.” – Louis Kossuth. – It is much easier to win if one has no territorial ambitions of one’s own but strives only for exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. – With this program future revolutionaries and liberators will win much easier and faster and will not establish new dictatorships. – JZ, 6.5.08. – Can one reach all present revolutionaries and "freedom fighters" with that message? - JZ, 22.2.11. - TYRANNY, REVOLUTION, LIBERATION, PANARCHISM, Q, FREEDOM FIGHTERS

RESISTANCE: What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take up arms. … The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood or patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. Smith, Paris, 13.11.1787, Writings, IV, p.467. – In another version: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” – The natural practice of liberty and rights consists, rather, in non-violent individual and group secessionis and voluntary association in exterritorially autonomous communities and societies practising other and, hopefully, betters systems among their members. – With such a platform little if any bloodshed would be needed. It would also be a kind of tax strike, reducing the number of tax payers of the unpopular or insufficiently satisfactory regime. – JZ, 11.1.08. - If patriots would not insist upon territorial rule, much less bloodshed would be required of them. To the extent, that they do insist on it, they are really unpatriotic and part of the problem of territorial despotism. – JZ, 6.5.08, 22.2.11. – TYRANNICIDE, PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, LIBERTY, REVOLUTION, LIBERATION, DIS.

RESISTANCE: What matters is not that we have prevailed, but that we have resisted.” – Francois Mauriac, quoted in Hans Habe, Off Limits. – If the resistance had started in time, had used the right means and aimed at quite rightful ends, it might have been successful. Too little, too late, is usually not enough and may cost many more lives than a comprehensive, quite rightful and timely resistance. Why should such resistance not also be supported by a science at least as well developed as military science is? – I hold that an ideal militia force of volunteers for the protection of individual rights and liberties would be the ideal resistance force and the ultimate authority. – Alas, it still requires an ideal declaration of such rights, which has not yet been compiled or developed or not yet sufficiently published. – Territorial States cannot be relied upon to recognize and protect all individual rights and liberties sufficiently. - JZ, 6.5.08, 23.7.12. - SUCCESS, LIBERATION, HUMAN RIGHTS, MILITIA, TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, GOVERNMENTS, STATE, TERRITORIALISM

RESISTANCE: when a long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is the right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.” – US Declaration of Independence. – How many wrongful laws, rules and regulations have to be passed and enforced before one can say that such a case does already exist? – Already a single abuse or the opinion that a better system could be established, should authorize individuals and minorities to secede from every territorial State – in order to do their own things for or to themselves. Such a withdrawal cannot be rightly interpreted as an aggressive act. It will provoke only a minimum or resistance, in some instances, perhaps, none at all, since the rulers would thus get easily rid of those, whom they consider to be either mere trouble-makers or fools or misguided idealists. – In many instances governments were already prepared to let them emigrate. Panarchism provides something like an internal emigration or internal mission option to peaceful volunteers. Even terrorists and other violent revolutionaries could become pacified and disarmed by this option. – JZ, 6.5.08, 23.7.12. – REVOLUTION, PANARCHISM

RESISTANCE: When the followers of any system attempt to coerce others to apply this system, then this is tyranny and it authorizes resistance. - JZ, in pamphlet: TOLERANCE. - TYRANNY, COERCION, SYSTEM-MONGERS, COMPULSION

RESISTANCE: Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.” – U.S. Declaration of Independence. – Doesn’t this more or less apply to almost every territorial government today, as long as they are still territorial governments with involuntary subjects who are neither captured private criminals with victims nor foreign aggressors? – JZ, 6.5.08. – REVOLUTION, TERRITORIALISM, Q.

RESISTANCE: Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves in a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther [further? – JZ] obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whenever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust, they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and try the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.” – John Locke, Two Treaties on Government, Chap. 2, 1690, - Ibid, Ch. 9, Of the Dissolution in Government. – Alas, he, too, had only one people and one territory in mind and not as many different peoples and as many different societies and communities as different people wish to establish and maintain for themselves and as long as they do, all with voluntary members only and none with a territorial monopoly. – JZ, 6.5.08.

RESOLVE: Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.” – Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography, 1791, p.2. – Resolve to undertake the quite rightful, reasonable and possible - as soon as you can. – JZ, 10.11.85. - Also work to achieve that freedom of action a.s.a.p. - JZ, 22.2.11. - RESOLUTION, WILL, REFORM, SELF-DEVELOPMENT, SELF-ENLIGHTENMENT IN BASIC RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OPTIONS, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

RESOLVING DIFFERENCES, SELF-CHOSEN VS. ENFORCED UNITY: The aim should not be to try to directly resolve differences by interference but, rather, to allow them to coexist anonymously and exterritorially, among volunteers, who have sorted themselves out, under their own personal laws and institutions and become thus free to act among like-minded people. There does not have to be one territorial law system and State institution for all. That remains the high road to war, civil war and revolution, seeing the contrary critters that we are. Let the ones play chess or republic while the others play tennis or monarchy. To each his own. That is the precondition for a peaceful and just and free civilization and for continued progress. - JZ, 13.1.93, 9.9.04, 20.9.04.

RESPECT: As the foundation of all morality is respect for the free choice and the free action of others, the essence of a true offence against person or property seems to be the violent interference with a man’s faculties, the constraining of his will and actions. By constraining the will and actions, I mean either that a man is prevented (by physical coercion) from doing those actions which he is physically and morally competent to do; or that his will is constrained (without any acquiescence on his part) so that as a consequence his actions are constrained.” – Auberon Herbert, in Mack edition, p.154. – Underlining by JZ – MORALITY, FREEDOM OF ACTION, COERCION VS. VOLUNTARISM RESPECT, TERRITORIALISM, CHOICE, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

RESPECT: In order for agreements to be respected, we must have respectable agreements.” – Stormy Mon, A Liberty Book, p.44. – Territorial monopolism, coercion and subordination are not “respectable” and thus cannot be approved by all moral and rational individuals. Nevertheless, like formerly slavery, serfdom and torture, the burning of widows and witches and the non-recognition of the rights of females, it has been tolerated for all too long among all too many peoples. - JZ, 22.2.11, 23.7.12. - CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, TREATIES, INTERNATIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WELFARE CLAIMS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIALISM

RESPECT: Respect individuals, not groups.” - Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do ‘til the Revolution, Breakout Productions, Port Townsend, Washington, 1999, rev. ed., ISBN 1-89.3626-13-X, page 64, point 37. – Unless they are groups of individuals, who are merely doing their own things for or to themselves. – JZ, 26.9.07. – Don’t respect groups based on compulsory membership or subordination. – JZ, 30.3.09. - INDIVIDUALS, NOT GROUPS, INDIVIDUALS VS. INVOLUNTARY COLLECTIVES, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, DIS., COLLECTIVE GUILT & RESPONSIBILITY NOTIONS.

RESPECT: respect the dignity and right of every human being to his own scale of values.” – Leonard E. Read, Talking to Myself, p.82. – Alas, he was not prepared to recognize various competing personal law communities, none with any territorial monopoly claim, as alternatives to the limited but still territorial governments that he considered to be ideal. – Our respect for men like him should not prevent us from going beyond him, if we can or if others have pointed out even better options to us. - JZ, 6.5.08. – TOLERANCE, RIGHTS, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS

RESPECTISM & PERSONALISM: To escape the prejudice which the opponents of a polity based on individual personal right sought to impart by representing it as a disordered egoism, now that the term Liberal had become debased, in its turn, such terms as Personalism and Respectism (indicating the same respect for the rights of others as of one’s own) were later proposed by various other groups of Individualists.” - HUTCHINSON HARRIS, S., The Doctrine of Personal Right, Barcelona, 1935, 583 pages, p.299. – Reproduced on microfiche in PEACE PLANS 483.

RESPONSIBILITY, INDIVIDUAL: The responsibility to prevent the occurrence of catastrophic man-made events relies on each individual. Otherwise each individual, in different ways, will be doomed, going down with the conflagration or being swept away by the resulting vortex, unaware of why ultimate terror is befalling him and naively proclaiming his innocence right until the moment terror arrives to visit him. - What is instead required from each one of us, in the ways and forms which are humanly possible in each case, is the: - Dissociation from tyrants: We should distance ourselves, as soon as possible, from vicious rulers and their criminal gangs and withdraw our support, as much as possible, either through underground resistance or through open intervention. - Denunciation of tyrants: The open intervention should aim at deposing the tyrant and his criminal clique, bringing them to trial. The examples set by the detention of Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor should represent only the beginning and should lead to a wider and deeper cleansing of the world of murderous rulers. - Dissolution of tyrants: A judicial process should be the proper way for the abolition of tyrants. However, if a Prime Minister, President of State, Commander in chief of the army, etc. cannot be brought to trial for one reason or another, then, tyrannicide is the justifiable act of last resort. -  "They [the Utopians] regard it as honourable, as an act of humanity and mercy which, by the death of a few guilty individuals [the warmongering rulers], saves the lives of thousands of innocent people who would otherwise die on the battlefield. For the mercy of Utopians embraces all enemy soldiers. They know that the soldiers do not begin a war on their own initiative but are forced by orders resulting from the quarrelsomeness of princes." - Thomas More, Utopia, 1516. - - "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to W. S. Smith, 1787. - Clearly tyrannicide should only be the extreme option, taken in order to stop further large scale crimes committed/ordered by a person; stop other people following the example and engaging in similar crimes. - However, if the person (Prime Minister, State President, etc.) responsible for those crimes, brings an end to the wrongdoings (completely) - makes reparation (as far as possible) - asks sincerely for forgiveness (as soon as possible) he should be re-admitted into the circle of humankind and no attack on his life should be undertaken. - With this necessary act of retribution we are, nonetheless, still in the realm of politics and so of hatred and vindictive deeds. - After that, we need to move beyond politics and beyond territorial, monopolistic and totalitarian organizations, towards the sphere of spatialism, pluralism, voluntarism, a sphere inhabited by cosmopolitan individuals characterized by the universal attitude and practice of tolerance and acceptance of different creeds and customs, in all fields. - - The trajectory started a few centuries ago with the introduction of religious tolerance would be then extended and completed with the practice of political tolerance and freely chosen membership covering the wide social area of state allegiance and group association. In other words, the practice of voluntary association (or abstention from any association) should be available to every individual, in relation to any community and organization, the state included. - BELLIS, GIAN PIERO de: Scenarios for the Future, 2006, - In his 1795 book "Eternal Peace", Kant called any government as being, essentially, still a despotism, as long as in it only one or a few decide upon war and peace. Alas, he still believed in the representation of the people by politicians assembled in a parliament. - He did not favor direct democracy on this subject and the right of minorities to stay neutral, make other alliances, secede and associate under personal law or full exterritorial autonomy. - JZ, 25.8.11. - INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR AND PEACE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, TYRANNICIDE, LEADERSHIP, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE, KANT

RESPONSIBILITY: Allow everyone maximum opportunity to become self-responsible.” – Leonard E. Read, The Love of Liberty, p.96. - In every sphere, even those presently monopolized by territorial governments. - Not only the opportunity but also the right and liberty. Provided he or she are rational enough to recognize and respect basic individual rights and liberties, which others to rightfully claim for themselves and those restrictions, which they do impose – but only upon themselves. - Alas, so far none of us seems to know all of these rights and liberties, since all of themy have not yet been compiled or published together, to the extent that they have already become known or found by at least some people. – Since 1969, when Ulrich von Beckerath died, I have found no interest in other anarchists or libertarians to help complete this very important work. - JZ, 22.2.11, 23.7.12. - HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES. COMPARE THE DRAFTS OF PRIVATE HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION IN PEACE PLANS 589/90, ONLINE AT

RESPONSIBILITY: And they shift responsibility for their own safety and well-being over to the few men in government.” - LeFevre, Lift Her Up, Tenderly, p.189. - All too often with catastrophic results. - JZ, 22.2.11. - STATISM, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

RESPONSIBILITY: Everybody’s business is nobody’s business.” – English proverb, traced by Apperson to 1611. – Politicians and most voters haven’t learnt that lesson as yet. The are still collectivist territorial statists. – One should be free to secede from as slow learners. – JZ, 2.4.09.  Also free to engage in alternative free experimentation in every sphere, under personal law and full exterritorial autonomy volunteers. Panarchism and polyarchism do not demand anything more – but also not anything less. – JZ, 23.7.12. – INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

RESPONSIBILITY: For Bastiat, the essence of social organization rested in a single idea: “We see, then, that in almost all of the important actions of life we must respect men’s free will, defer to their own good judgment, to that inner light that God has given them to use, and beyond this to let the law of responsibility take its course.” – G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p. 230. - Is the inner light bright enough in most people, without an external aid, some genuine education or self-education and also a sufficient knowledge or rights, liberties, principles, ethics, without the guidance of e.g. the best declaration of individual rights and liberties that mankind could and should provide by now? Is everyone, who can read and write, speak, listen and view supposed to be able to make all ethical decisions correctly, on the spur of the moment, without any previous guidance or input from others? If so, then he would certainly act better in this respect than the God of the Old and of the New Testament. - Alas, we are not god-like and need some good tools, knowledge, experience and references - in this sphere perhaps most of all. - The fact that the right to secede, to individual sovereignty, to exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, to trade and migrate freely, monetary and financial freedom are still not generally recognized today, to their full extent, proves to me, that most people are unable to make such decisions correctly, on the spot, even if they are well read and had a university education and may even be world-wide known scholars and great achievers in other spheres. - JZ, 22.2.11, 23.7.12. - PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, CHOICE, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS DECLARATION, ETHICS, MORALITY, CONSCIENCE, SPIRIT, GOD, BIBLE

RESPONSIBILITY: For my part, it seems to me that there is a connection between the aspiration that impels all men towards the improvement of their material, intellectual, and moral condition, and the faculties with which they are endowed to realize this aspiration. - Hence, I should like each man to have, on his own responsibility, the free disposition, administration, and control of his own person, his acts, his family, his transactions, his associations (*), his intelligence, his faculties, his labor, his capital, and his property.” – Bastiat, in G. C. Roche III, Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.243. – (*) Alas, here he did not expressly include associations of volunteers only, who would realize whole political, economic and social systems, whole communities, societies and competing governments among themselves, all without any territorial monopoly. Thus the advocates of limited governments do still largely overlook this freedom alternative. Or maybe they merely dislike it because it would also give others than radical freedom advocates their chance to do their things for or to themselves. – JZ, 16.5.08, 23.7.12. - PANARCHISM

RESPONSIBILITY: He must vouch for the establishment of a truly free society based on personal responsibility, the only really free society.” – Nestor Machno, The Anarchist Revolution. – Why should there only be one society and this of the kind the N. M. favored for himself? Why not as many different societies and communities as volunteers want for themselves? Even most anarchists are still intolerant territorialists, who want to impose their kind of supposedly ideal society upon all others. In the text the above sentence was followed by: “His pronouncement on the State must be one of total destruction: … “ - Why not leave States for statists, as deterrent examples for all others, as long as the former State is deprived of his territorial monopoly and all its dissenters are free to secede from it? – JZ, 6.5.08. - Q., DIS., TERRITORIALISM OR EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL, WHO DESIRE IT FOR THEMSELVES?

RESPONSIBILITY: He who allows oppression shares the crime.” - Erasmus Darwin, The Botanic Garden, Pt. ii, canto 3, 1.458. - If he had the option to allow or disallow! - JZ, n.d. - We are still far from awareness and realization of individual sovereignty, which would give us the required choice and decision-making power and also from the panarchistic institutions that would realize individual sovereignty in the political, economic and social spheres. - JZ, 24.11.05, 23.7.12. - OPPRESSION, SUBORDINATION, RESISTANCE, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM

RESPONSIBILITY: He who weights his responsibilities can bear them.” – Martial, Epigrams, XII, c. 100. – That is hardly true e.g. for Presidents, Prime Ministers and Generals. For instance: With their single lives they can hardly make up for the thousands to millions of human lives that they sacrifice by their decisions. One can only be responsible for oneself and one’s actions and somewhat among volunteers, mostly only in small and “human scale” groups. – JZ, 16.5.08.

RESPONSIBILITY: I observe that most fashionable reforms depend on over-ruling individual responsibility by enlarging the role of government – which in practice means politicians and bureaucrats exercising more power over their fellow men.” – Ralph Harris, The End of Government … ?, Part II The Morality of the Market, p.29. – One might add: With their usual ignorance, prejudices and arrogance. – JZ, 25.7.92. – Power addicts, depriving others of powers and responsibilities over their own lives. - JZ, 22.2.11. - SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, GOVERNMENT, BUREAUCRACY, RULERS, LAWS, REGULATIONS, SELF-HELP, INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, TERRITORIALISM

RESPONSIBILITY: If I were given the opportunity to present a gift to the next generation, it would be the ability for each individual to learn to laugh at himself.” - Charles Schultz. - As for the rest, it will largely have to be responsible for itself, individual by individual. Anyhow, we do not export much from spaceship earth - and they will have more chances than we had, to import much to it. - They will have also a better science and technology to keep the environment clean and to clean it up. - But I wish I could e.g. induce neighbors not to throw their rubbish over fences and drivers and pedestrians not to dump it on the road. Too many "adults" still behave like infants do in nurseries.– Too many, with an undisturbed conscience, force their choices as voters upon others, living in the same territory. That is still the major crime most people in “democracies’ are guilty of. – - JZ, 25.11.02, 30.3.09, 23.7.12. – TERRITORIALISM, MAJORITIES, VOTING, RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, & ALSO THE PRESENT ONE, PANARCHISM, LAUGHING ABOUT ONESELF

RESPONSIBILITY: In a healthy world the better type of human being searches about for responsibility to shoulder. Indeed he cannot obtain sufficient self-respect unless he can feel the weight of as much responsibility as he thinks he can carry. The modern world, however, is built upon a different ideal and is determined to do without personal responsibility of any kind, moral, physical or economic. There is, of course, no moral responsibility about public affairs. A Sovereign State is the keeper of its own conscience, and can do no wrong. Parliaments can change their minds as often as they like, and always be right. Contracts with a State are only contracts so long as it suits the State to observe their terms. Morals and State-craft have little, if anything in common. Physical responsibility is out of fashion. … Economic responsibility is steadily diminishing, as we continue to contrive new ways of operating with other people’s money. The absence of responsibility in the State, which robs, subsidizes, deflates or inflates at its pleasure, is slowly permeating downwards and beginning to affect even our private lives.” – Sir Ernest Benn, Honest Doubt, p. 211/12. – WELFARE STATE, SECURITY, TRANSFER SOCIETY, SELF-HELP, SELF-RESPECT, STATE, MORALITY, PARLIAMENTS, GOVERNMENTS, AUTHORITY, TERRITORIALISM, REPRESENTATIVES, POLITICIANS

RESPONSIBILITY: it is impossible to keep liquor away from any adult who is determined to have it. The United States Government wasn't that powerful. I'll go further. It is impossible for anyone to be responsible for another person's behavior. I spoke of myself as 'responsible' for this group; that was verbal shorthand. The most I can do - or you, or any leader - is to encourage each one to be responsible for himself.” - Robert Heinlein in Farnham's Freehold, p.72. – SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

RESPONSIBILITY: We cannot deny knowledge and reject responsibility. We must accept some premises, otherwise we cannot form a human society.” – G. B. Shaw. - Only a JZ translation of a German version: “Wir koennen das Wissen nicht leugnen und die Verantwortung nicht ablehnen. Wir muessen auf irgendwelchen Annahmen fussen, sonst koennen wir keine menschliche Gesellschaft bilden.“ – Daily practice shows that many of us can and do deny knowledge and responsibility and thus increase all our troubles. – JZ, 22.6.93. – People are much too diverse in their characteristics, ideas, preferences and aims to fit properly into a single society. Primarily, they need societies of their own choices, in which it will be hard to impossible for them to remain all too ignorant and irresponsible for too long. The knowledge they need is primarily how they can have their own individual choices and responsibilities, different from those of others in the same country and in the world and, nevertheless, get along peacefully and tolerantly with members of all other societies of volunteers. With the territorial model, now almost exclusively considered and practised, when it comes to political, economic and social systems, this is not possible. With the exterritorial model - for each of xyz societies, governance systems and communities of volunteers - it is inherent. The territorial model makes for ignorance, prejudices and irresponsibility for most people, even among the rulers and leading opinion makers. – The essential presupposition for such panarchistic or polyarchic societies etc. are only voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy. – JZ, 12.5.08, 23.7.12. - KNOWLEDGE, PREJUDICES, DIS.

RESPONSIBILITY: What is freedom? Freedom is the right to choose; the right to create for yourself the alternative of choice. Without the responsibility and exercise of choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing.” – Archibald Macleish (1882-1982), 12/04/37 - CHOICE, ALTERNATIVES, FREEDOM & MAN, HUMAN NATURE, INDEPENDENCE, SELF-DETERMINATION

RESPONSIBILITY: When Goodman referred to himself as a 'neolithic Conservative', it was a reflection of his basic agreement with Burke and other conservatives who argued that man's first freedom consists of the right to protect his fundamental ties with nature. Since organized government is only a secondary form of human association, it has no right to coerce the individual into violating his social responsibility to primary social attachments such as peer group, family and community.” - Reichert: Partisans of Freedom, p.571.

RESPONSIBILITY: you can’t teach individual responsibility by denying the pupil the chance to practise it.” – L. Neil Smith, The Nagasaki Vector, p.106. - INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY


RESTORATION: Restore liberty and justice!” – Leonard E. Read, THE FREEMAN, 2/75. – This presumes already that they had ever been anywhere sufficiently realized as yet. – Restoring only former fragment of liberty would be by far not enough. All rights and liberties already discovered by some must become generally known and realized – at least among their voluntary supporters. Opportunities must also be left to discover, apply and experiment with new kinds of liberties and justice arrangements and to demonstrate them among volunteers ONLY, and thus as efficiently as can be done. – JZ, 6.5.08, 23.7.12. - DIS.

RESTRAINTS & RESTRICTED POWERS OF GOVERNMENTS: JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E., Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery, 1984. Page 309: "According to the Founding Fathers, government had to be restrained, and its powers carefully balanced, in order to prevent the tyranny which had always occurred when one faction attempted to use the powers of the state to force its own views - in matters of religion, for example - over another faction." - The Founding Fathers obviously overlooked the rightful and necessary restraints resulting from voluntary membership, meaning also individual dissociation or secessionism and exterritorial or a-territorial autonomy for voluntary communities, not only limited autonomy for e.g. football clubs and professional associations. - JZ, in letter to GPdB & C.B., 11.11.04. - TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, POWER, GOVERNMENTS

RESTRAINTS: Adam Smith said, “All systems of preference or restraint thus being swept away, the sweet and simple system of natural liberty comes into being of its own accord.” -  You don’t even have to create it. It adheres in the very nature of man. I believe that to be true. All that a government need to encourage competition is not to get in its way, not stop it.” – Benjamin R. Rogge, Will Capitalism Survive? in Champions of Freedom, p.34/35. - However preferences and restraints practised only among volunteers, at their expense and risk, should not be done away with. They belong to natural liberty and natural rights. - Only territorially imposed government and other compulsory membership bodies, like some trade unions and sects, who do not permit secession from them, have to be got out of our way. - JZ, 22.2.11. - PRIVILEGES, SUBSIDIES, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP & SUBJUGATION, IMPOSED MONOPOLIES

RESTRAINTS: All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the (*) actions of other people.” – J. S. Mill, On Liberty, I, 1859. – Restraints upon wrongful - destructive activities - and restraints upon rightful, voluntary and self-responsible, constructive or creative activities should be distinguished, just like aggressive and defensive force should be distinguished from each other. – How can one sufficiently restrain the abuse of the language? - JZ, 5.7.86, 15.5.08. - (*) wrongful - DIS., DEFINITIONS, LANGUAGE, FORCE, COERCION, MONOPOLIES, COMPULSION, Q.

RESTRAINTS: Not the standard of living of the citizens should be reduced but that of the governments. – JZ, 10.6.86. – Voluntary taxation, competition from many exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers and individual secessionism would be significant steps in this direction. – JZ, 18.5.08.

RESTRICTIONS: Freedom" has no meaning of itself. There are always restrictions, be they legal, genetic, or physical. If you don't believe me, try to chew a radio signal.” - Kelvin Throop, III. - As if freedom lovers advocated freedom from natural laws rather than from imposed human laws. - JZ, 23.8.02. – One should clearly distinguish between natural limitations, the limitations of individual persons and the man-made artificial and legalized restrictions wrongfully imposed upon peaceful dissenters. Let people opt out and secede – to do their own things! – JZ, 30.3.09. – SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM FREEDOM, DIS.

RESTRICTIONS: We all of us live too much in a circle.” – Benjamin Disraeli. – Rather, we are not free to live quite autonomously and by our own standards in all spheres, in our own circles and always at the own expense and risk. – 26.4.06. We are coerced into a territorialist circle and free at best to escape to other such circles, which are a bit less oppressive and exploitative. – JZ, 21.9.07. - RESTRICTED LIVES & ACTIVITIES, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM. FREE MIGRATION IS NOT ENOUGH.

RETALIATION: Each retaliatory agency would have only that income which it was able to achieve through selling its services. And each would have only the power granted to it by its own customers.” – Robert LeFevre, The Libertarian, p.46. – PROTECTIVE AGENCIES, POLICE FORCES, COMPETITIVE

RETREATISM, DROPPING OUT, NON-VOTING, CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION, PASSIVE RESISTANCE, SELF-EXCLUSION: Self-exclusion is not enough. One would still remain the victim of the territorial politics of others. One must also be free to choose other politics, even if these are totalitarian towards oneself and like-minded volunteers, or limited government politics, or governmentalism reduced to zero as in non-governmental free societies of anarchists and radical libertarians. - - "And such self-exclusion, far from being arbitrary discrimination, would in fact give substance and reality to one of the most important negative liberties we have enjoyed since the end of the ancient world, namely, freedom from politics, which was unknown to Rome or Athens and which is politically perhaps the most relevant part of our Christian heritage." - Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, p.284. -  I find religious liberty more relevant. - Many years ago I bothered to write a long letter to her, showing similarities between some of her thoughts and that of panarchists. I never received a reply. - JZ, 14.1.93.

RETREATISM: The idea of anarchy is to eliminate legislated coercion, not to hide in the bushes.” – George Kysor, THE CONNECTION 115, p.108. – Actually, most of the retreatists own and work the land or work in some crafts or professions in the countryside and merely try to keep their cash incomes under the amounts subject to direct taxation. – None of them were, to my knowledge, permitted to secede. Some were offered huge amounts of development capital – if they succeeded to get their “secession” attempts legalized. - JZ, 14.5.08. – E.g. Len Casley with his Hut River Province secession attempt in Western Australia. – JZ, 1.4.09.

RETREATISM: There is no Haven. There is no Sanctuary. There is no Utopia - - which Thomas More perfectly well understood, since “utopia” means no-place. There is no place to run, no place to hide, when the System is predatory, political and coercive.” – Erwin Strauss, THE CONNECTION 90, 13.10.80. – TERRITORIALISM

REVOLUTION & INDIVIDUALS: Die Revolution des Einzelnen sollte dem Einzelnen immer offenstehen - und andere koennen sich ihm anschliessen, wenn, wann und wo sie wollen ..." - author? source? Fichte? (The revolution of the individual should always be an option for the individual and others could join him if, when and where they want to.)

REVOLUTION & PANARCHISM: The beginnings for the theory and practice of libertarian and panarchistic revolutions against dictatorships can be found in my first peace book, whose English translation is now online at - The German original has not yet found a permanent place on the IN, but it has also been digitized by me and is offered on my first CD or via e-mail by me. - JZ, 2.9.04.

REVOLUTION & REFORMS: To each his own revolution or reform. - JZ, 5.12.93.

REVOLUTION & TOLERANCE: The revolution that establishes tolerance is the only worthwhile and probably last revolution. - JZ, On Tolerance.

REVOLUTION, ENLIGHTENMENT, WAR & PEACE: War is unthinkable in a society of autonomous people, who have discovered the connectedness of all humanity, who are unafraid of alien ideas and alien cultures, who know that all revolutions begin within and that you cannot impose your brand of enlightenment on anyone else." – M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, 451. - There are many more and more concrete reasons why panarchism would be peace-promoting. E.g., under it there would neither be any inflation nor taxation possible to finance wars, nor conscription or hiring of mercenaries (with tax funds, for cannon fodder), no more monopolized decision-making on war and peace, no more oppression, no more internal disagreements of any large scale, which often bring dictators to power. - JZ, 8.4.89, 23.7.12.


REVOLUTION: A game of musical chairs, the object of which is to end up occupying the seat of government.” – L. A. Rollins, Lucifer’s Lexicon. –– Free individual and group secessionism, combined with voluntaristic and exterritorial autonomy under personal laws - would change that "game" as well. – JZ, 17.5.08, 22.2.11. - TERRITORIALISM.

REVOLUTION: A people which had supported the most crushing laws without complaint, and apparently as if they were unfelt, throws them off with violence as soon as the burden begins to be diminished.” - Alexis de Tocqueville. - Degrees of freedom breed the desire for more freedom and finally for all liberties and rights. To that extent freedom practices are infective - but the incubation period is often all too long. - JZ, 22.8.02. – Further, the liberation, revolution or freedom struggles are often all too uninformed, primitive, destructive and murderous. A good and attractive program for all of them is either still amiss or still insufficiently published, appreciated and known. - It should include panarchism, full monetary and financial freedom, a comprehensive human rights declaration and an ideal militia for their protection. These and other steps would make possible and even likely - bloodless or almost bloodless revolutions and liberations, as well as the efficient defence of free societies and communities. - JZ, 22.2.11, 23.7.12. - LAWS, OPPRESSION, REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION: A revolution is a correction of abuses; a revolution is a transfer of power.” – Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1803-1873. – Andrews Quotes. - Did he not realize how contradictory these two remarks are? Why assume that a new territorial power would be better than the old one? Territorial power is the main abuse. - Revolutions that merely transfer a territorial monopoly power from one to the other regime are usually not worth the blood that is shed in them and after them, by the new territorial regime. – JZ, 8.5.08. - DIS., TERRITORIALISM, RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS

REVOLUTION: a revolution is certainly the most authoritarian things there is, it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries”. – Friedrich Engels, quoted in Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.637. – Already J. G. Fichte saw the alternative to that, namely the one-person revolution, made possible through individual secessionism. He also saw that every revolution tends to be made up of xyz secessions. However, if these secessionists have all only territorial ideals then we get the usual bloody revolutions and counter-revolutions in the attempts to establish and maintain another territorial, i.e. an exclusive or monopolistic rule over a whole population, regardless of its many differences of ideas, opinions, traditions, races, religions or ideologies. – Every revolution should apply only to its volunteers and none of them should be granted any territorial monopoly. – That would also reduce the old regime to its volunteers and, to that extent, turn it into a rightful one – for them. - JZ, 30.3.94, 11.5.08, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: A revolution, to be permanent, must first be mental.” – Benjamin R. Tucker. – If that is not the case, then they are, usually, not worth the lives, earnings and property they cost. The primary wrong to be abolished by any rightful revolution is the territorial monopoly, i.e. the compulsory subordination under a territorial State of whatever kind. Without it we arrive almost automatically at voluntarism and its peaceful and “panarchistic” one-man revolutions, which, among other things, would facilitate all rightful defensive, liberation, reformist and revolutionary efforts and minimize resistance against them. – JZ, 7.5.08, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: A revolutionary is either a socialist under capitalism or a capitalist under socialism." - Petan. - Thus, obviously, to prevent revolutions, allow socialism among consenting socialists and capitalism among consenting adults, both kinds of beliefs, laws and institutions among their believers, side by side, in the same country and population. Let them produce and exchange freely, in accordance with their ideals rather than merely cast majority or minority votes, march and demonstrate, organize, fight, conspire, subvert or terrorize. - JZ 15.1.93. – Moreover, establish the same freedom and opportunity for every other movement that wishes to realize its own beliefs, convictions or ideology only among its believers and is tolerant enough to leave all others to try to realize their ideals among themselves. – Under full exterritorial autonomy or personal law for all of them, they can quite peacefully coexist and become allies against the remaining intolerant people, from criminals to private or official terrorists and aggressors. The number of these will already become greatly reduced by this tolerance option and competitive protection and defence organizations will be much more effective than monopolistic ones. – People, who can have their way among themselves will be busy with their own affairs and have less reasons or motives to fight than people whose ideals, laws, practices and institutions are country-wide suppressed. - JZ, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: A territorial “revolutionary government” is a contradiction in terms. No territorial government, once established, is revolutionary. It is always an enemy of revolutionaries. – Only exterritorial governments and societies might continue to be revolutionary among its volunteers, in form of continuing free experiments among them, while recognizing and leaving alone all other exterritorially autonomous governments, societies and communities of volunteers, regardless of whether they are revolutionary, conservative or progressive ones, all merely doing their own things for or to themselves, thus providing more knowledge and experience with their tolerant and thus tolerated experiments. - JZ, 9.12.79, 7.5.08, 24.7.12. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: After each revolution there is an interregnum, in which communities run themselves and all is well, and then the new regime comes and screws things up. … ask them very humbly how they have been running things these past two months, and then throw this fancy constitution away and say: continue.” – Kim Stanley Robinson, Blue Mars, p.162. – As long as most people think mainly only in terms of territorial systems, laws and institutions, they will soon be re-established and lead to many new dissatisfied groups. But let each group of volunteers have its own system, then one will get something like a very enlightening and productive as well as peaceful permanent revolution, reform movement, peaceful coexistence and competition going, with each group of volunteers tolerantly participating in the attempt to realize the own ideals among like-minded people, at the own risk and expense, quite independent from the ideals and institutions, laws, constitutions and jurisdictions of the others and attempting to set an attractive example for all others. – Why confine competitions to e.g. cooking, dancing and sports competitions, and the provision of ordinary consumer goods and services, instead of expanding them to all kinds of realistic or utopian reform or revolution attempts, in the political, economic and social system spheres, all tolerantly practised only among their volunteers? - JZ, 9.11.07. - & INTERREGNUM, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, Q., COMPETITION IN ALL SPHERES, EVEN FOR THOSE, WHO TRY TO REALIZE THEIR NON-COMPETITIVE & AUTHORITARIAN “IDEALS” AMONG THEMSELVES ONLY!

REVOLUTION: All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.” – Albert Camus, The Rebel, 1951. – They did not even attempt to abolish territorial power! – JZ, 17.5.08. – To that extent they were all still all too conservative! – J.Z., 24.7.12. - TERRITORIALISM

REVOLUTION: All rebellions are ordinary and an ultimate bore. They are copied out of the same pattern, one much like another. The driving force is adrenalin addiction and the desire to gain personal power. All rebels are aristocrats.” – Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune, p.27. – All rebels are territorialists. That is their greatest weakness. Against exterritorialist rebels the territorialism of the old regime would be its greatest weakness and the exterritorialism of the rebels would be their greatest strength against any territorial regime. – How many revolutionaries have recognized that as yet? - JZ, 7.5.08. – Q., EXTERRITORIALITY, PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: all revolutions begin within … you cannot impose your brand of enlightenment on anyone else.” – M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.451. – PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, SELF-EDUCATION, ENLIGHTENMENT, GENUINELY CULTURAL REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION: America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” – Claire Wolfe. - But it is never too early for individual and group secessionism, as long as one concedes that right and liberty to all others as well. - JZ, 24. 11. 06. - THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION & PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR DISSENTERS

REVOLUTION: An abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.” – Ambrose Bierce. – This applies to all but libertarian revolutions. These would at least liberate libertarians. – JZ, 5/73. They would not bring statists closer to their libertarian ideal but allow them to try to realize their statist “ideals” among their believers. All forms of libertarianism for all kinds of libertarians and all kinds of statism for all kinds of statists – with the exception of all territorial utopias, because they try to impose and maintain a single utopia upon all kinds of dissenters as well. The revolutions resulting from individual secessionism, combined with individuals freely joining or establishing alternative societies and communities of like-minded volunteers, would not result, mostly, in abrupt over-all changes for whole populations but only in gradual ones. Only one by one and group by group would a government, society or community lose or gain new members. That would be comparable in its gradualism to the loss of subjects by emigration and the gain of new citizens due to immigration. But for the individuals involved the changes would, indeed, in most cases be rather abrupt – and wanted and welcomed by them in spite of or because of this. – JZ, 7.5.08, 24.7.12. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: An oppressed people are authorized whenever they can to rise and break their fetters.” - Henry Clay, Speech, House of Representatives, March 4, 1818. - RIGHT TO REVOLUTION AGAINST OPPRESSION. Any oppressed or exploited minority is an oppressed or exploited minority without the right to secede. – JZ, 30.3.09. - Maybe in the U.S.A. the rich should start their revolution and be it only to escape their tax and regulation burdens. - Another large group would be parents, who wish to escape the governmental education imposed upon their children. - JZ, 22.2.11. Not only laborious home education should be one alternative for them but also education through correspondence or the Internet and through any competitive private education services that make use of the division of labor and of free exchange, replacing the present monopolistic and compulsory State education or miseducation “services”, much more cheaply and effectively, greatly reducing school years for the able and willing, e.g. by the monitor system developed by Joseph Lancaster. – J.Z., 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: And revolutions could neither be peaceful, nor democratic, nor liberal. As Engels said: “A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannon – authoritarian means, if such there be at all. …” - Quoted in Tucker, Robert C., The Marxian Revolutionary Idea, p.69, New York, 1970. - Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.160. – While this applies to most territorial revolutions, it does not apply to exterritorial revolutions, which are one-man or volunteer-revolutions only, realized for individuals and by individuals and minorities - by individual and groups secessions and individual and voluntary re-associations into communities of volunteers only that are all only exterritorially autonomous and thus not revolutions as usual, so far, all territorial and coercive towards their opponents. – These new kinds of revolutions will often be much more radical and much less violent than the most radical revolutions of the past and, nevertheless, be hardly noticed by most people, except when they do provide some strikingly new and valuable innovations among their voluntary participants. Only then will they become news – and will they become widely and peacefully imitated by new converts to their innovations. - JZ, 2.10.07, 22.2.11, 24.7.12. - DIS.

REVOLUTION: And so today it is conceivable that a change in the control of financial credit, or a new system of land tenure, might bring us nearer to anarchism than a political revolution which merely transferred power of the State into the hands of a new set of ambitious gangsters.” – Herbert Read, Anarchy and Order, p.129. – Quoted in “Social Relation and Freedom”, Modern Publishers, Indore, India, p.43/44. - MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM, LAND TENURE REFORM, ANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

REVOLUTION: Any rightful revolution would merely aim at allowing all those, who want to “follow a different drummer” to do so – at their own risk and expense. – JZ, 16.2.82, 7.5.08. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: as de Tocqueville remarked about the differences between the moderate constitutional monarchies and the more left-wing republics even of his day, the revolutionary regime ‘promises more but gives less’. Those who preach the that faults of our society can be cured by certain formulae, to be put into effect by an elite, should be required to show that they have studied the history of previous experiments on the same lines.” - Robert Conquest, We & They, Civil & Despotic Cultures, Temple-Smith, London, 1980, p.163. – They should, rather, be refused territorial powers and become confined to tolerant and exterritorially autonomous experiments - together with their voluntary followers. – JZ, 10.10.08. – TERRITORIALISM TO BE REPLACED BY EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS.

REVOLUTION: As long as the world shall last there will be wrongs, and if no man objected and no man rebelled, those wrongs would last forever.” – Clarence S. Darrow, Address to jury, Communist trial, Chicago, 1920, quoted by Arthur Weinberg, Attorney for The Damned, Simon & Schuster. – Also quoted in Seldes. – In voluntary and exterritorially autonomous societies and communities the objectors would either succeed with their objections or would be free to secede. And as exterritorial secessionists they could do their own things among themselves, at their own expense and risk. A revolution by them would neither be justified nor necessary. – JZ, 8.5.08. They would then also be free to engage in continuous revolutions or frequent revolutions, always within their own affairs only and among like-minded people. Dissenters would remain free to secede from them. – JZ, 24.7.12. – PANARCHISM, PERMANENT REVOLUTIONS?

REVOLUTION: As Rose Wilder Lane would surely point out, “This is a revolution only in the sense that a wheel’s turning is a revolution. Firm in the center is the assumption that someone must rule others.” The contest is not aimed at freedom; it is aimed at determining which of the many contenders will have power over others. Does Mr. Libertarian believe that he will display more fortitude, cunning, perseverance, and stubbornness than either Nixon or Ford?” – LEFEVRE’S JOURNAL, Winter 75. – TERRITORIALISM, Q.

REVOLUTION: Better no revolution than one based upon terror and mass murder.” – Larry Gambone, Saint Che, p.9. - Or merely on another form of territorialism, which, sooner or later, will also become authoritarian and despotic as well as exploitative? - JZ, 22.2.11. – Q., TERRITORIALISM

REVOLUTION: But the result is always the same. (*) In order to overthrow a government by force, it is necessary to create a focal point of force that is more powerful than the government to be overthrown. The people in that focal point, interpreting their own actions as ‘good’, now try to become even more powerful to prevent someone from doing the same thing to them. So governments grow and grow, and each revolution that topples a given government tends to create another one, often worse than the one that was overthrown.” – Robert LeFevre, Lift Her Up, Tenderly, p.191. - (*) For territorial revolutions! – JZ, 7.5.08. - For exterritorial ones a federation of the most diverse factions would be possible without faction fighting. - JZ, 22.2.11.

REVOLUTION: Even a successful revolution, if such a thing were conceivable, against the military tyranny, which is Statism’s last expedient, would accomplish nothing. The people would be as thoroughly indoctrinated with Statism after the revolution as they were before, and therefore the revolution would be no revolution, but a coup d’Etat, by which the citizen would gain nothing but a mere change of oppressors. There have been many revolutions in the past twenty-five years, and this has been the sum of their history. They amount to no more than an impressive testimony to the great truth that there can be no right action except there be right thinking behind it. As long as the easy, attractive, superficial philosophy of Statism remains in control of the citizen’s mind, no beneficent social change can be effected, whether by revolution or by any other means.” – Albert Jay Nock, in the introduction to a reprinting of Herbert Spencer’s “The Man Versus the State.” - Have the "revolutionaries" any excuse for not considering their exterritorial, and voluntary liberation options, which require only the kind of tolerance from them for other factions and parties among the freedom fighters, that they wish for themselves from the others? Experimental freedom and genuine self-government or self-management for all of them. All the different parties could win in such a revolution and even the government that they fight against could be continued, exterritorially, for its remaining volunteers. For all rational and moral participants it would be a win-win system. For the immoral regimes it would merely mean that they would lose the territorial power over all dissenting groups but that they could retain exterritorial autonomy power over their remaining volunteers or even additional future ones - as long as they can manage to satisfy them - without the former exploitation of dissenters. - "None is so blind as he who will not see." - JZ, 22.2.11, 24.7.12. – Q.

REVOLUTION: Every revolution evaporates, leaving behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy.” – Franz Kafka. – This is largely true for most territorial revolutions but untrue for the panarchistic, voluntary and exterritorial one-man revolutions. – JZ, 12.6.97, 12.5.08. – PANARCHISM, DIS.

REVOLUTION: Every successful revolution puts on in time the robes of the tyrant it has deposed.” – Barbara Tuchman. – The territorialist robe, power, institution, "principle" or position was never discarded by any of them that I know about. – JZ, 17.5.08, 22.2.11. – The exterritorial autonomy revolutions of volunteers offer the possibility of one-man revolutions, individual by individual, volunteer by volunteer and can, as such, proceed rather fast and further than any territorial revolutions and this without violence. Thus they should have become the preferred method long ago. They even offer to the power-addicts a kind of sinecure among their remaining and new volunteers, as long as they can manage to satisfy them. At the same time the statist or apathetic “sheeple” would get their  wish and what they deserve. – JZ, 24.7.12

REVOLUTION: Everything in the world depends upon a reasonable idea and a firm resolution.” – Goethe. – JZ tr. of: “Alles in der Welt kommt auf einen gescheiten Einfall und auf einen festen Entschluss an.” - A successful and genuinely liberating revolution needs a bit more. This suggestion is almost as primitive as the contemporary one of "Courage and courage!" - Although most revolutionaries know or should know that any successful military defence or aggression requires a lot of forethought and preparation, they seem to imagine that successful revolution would require no more than some mass meetings, slogans, marches and protests. With that kind of thoughtlessness they do cause many unjustifiable killings and much useless destruction. - Since a rightful revolution attempts to solve many different and real problems it certainly needs more than one reasonable idea. Unless that idea is something like the panarchistic idea of experimental freedom for all, under full exterritorial autonomy. However, that idea does involve many diverse ideas, facts and arguments, as even this mere slogans, quotes and comments collection shows. - JZ, 22.2.11, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: Everywhere revolutions are painful yet fruitful gestations of a people, they shed blood but create light, they eliminate men but elaborate ideas.” – Manuel González Prada, Horas de Lucha, 1908. – Do they always shed light and elaborate ideas rather than spread and realize popular errors and prejudices? – JZ, 16.5.08. – They do require much more in rightful thoughts, ideas and preparations than do military campaigns and mere military insurrections. - When their adherents do represent, as e.g. the Tea Party does, in the USA, Australia and Japan, a great variety of factions and aims, methods, beliefs and convictions, errors and prejudices, while not agreeing upon exterritorial voluntarism for all of them and mutual tolerance for their diverse self-management and self-government experiments, which they do wish to engage in, then they merely continue the basic wrong and flaw of the territorial regime, which they attempt to overthrow, among themselves. Thus they are their own worst enemies and allies. With such "friends" they do not need any external enemies to fail. They weaken and exhaust themselves by infighting. - With the panarchist aim they could draw most of the armed and unarmed servants of the authoritarian and despotic regime over to their side, provided only they do also have a good employment program. - I know of no revolutionaries who or had such a program, except the very few members of the Swiss, Jewish and German monetary freedom school. See especially - JZ, 22.2.11. - DIS.

REVOLUTION: Get interested in slave rebellions; Most are still to come. – JZ, 19.7.77, after watching a Spartacus movie for the second time. – Most people have still to realize that, by how much and by what they are largely enslaved. – JZ, 7.5.08. - SLAVERY, TAX SLAVERY, EDUCATION SLAVERY, MONETARY DESPOTISM, TERRITORIAL SUBJUGATION TO "REPRESENTATIVES" & THEIR "LAWS".

REVOLUTION: He said, “There’s an old Russian proverb. When four sit down to talk revolution, three are fools and the fourth a police spy.” – Mack Reynolds, Time Gladiator, p.150. – Seeing the wrongs and harm many territorial revolutions have caused, the attempts by territorial governments to suppress them are understandable. However, the suppression would be superfluous, once territorial regimes turn themselves into societies or communities of volunteers and let all others than their own volunteers simply do their own things for or to themselves. However, what is now wrongly called “political science” has not yet reached that degree of understanding and wisdom but, instead, takes the territorial monopoly and coercion simply for granted or as quite natural, justified and rational. However, it rightly resists or criticized mere further territorial secessions, because they lead to new territorial repressions. But it should not resist exterritorial, voluntary and tolerant secessionists. It should rather welcome them, as potential future allies against tyrannical and despotic territorial regimes. – JZ, 8.5.08, 24.7.12. - POLICE, SECRET POLICE, POLITICAL SCIENCE.

REVOLUTION: Here in America we are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels – men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), U.S. President, Speech, Columbia University, 1954 - Mere dissent is not enough. One must become free to act on it, at one's own expense and risk and without claiming any territorial monopoly for it, i.e. under personal law and full exterritorial autonomy. That means freedom to almost anyone, i.e. experimental freedom, tolerantly practised, in the last spheres still monopolized by territorial governments. Except, naturally, for those still who are e.g. preparing terrorist attacks on a small scale or mass murderous one, like those of the "nuclear strength" fanatics. - The tolerant practice of panarchism for any kind of reform or revolution, all only among volunteers, would greatly reduce the number of these terrorists and potential mass murderers and deprive them of any excuse for their kind of actions and "armament". Public opinion would become really united against them, if any of them remained. - Mental asylums would then be the right place for them. - Almost all of us would then wish to get them off our backs instead of all too many sympathizing with them or even joining them. - JZ, 23.2.11, 24.7.12. – To each and everyone the revolution or reform of the own free choice! A meta-utopia (Nozick’s term) that can be realized via individual and group secessions and reorganization under personal law or full exterritorial autonomy for all groups of like-minded volunteers. Freedom for dissenters and doctrinaires to practise their beliefs and convictions tolerantly, i.e. among themselves only. – JZ, 24.7.12. -, AMERICANISM, THE NEW FRONTIER: EVERYWHERE!

REVOLUTION: I am all in favor of revolution – provided each and everyone can have his own. – JZ, 13.8.75. – PANARCHISM, ONE-MAN REVOLUTIONS, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

REVOLUTION: I bid you to a one-man revolution - // The only revolution that is coming.” – Robert Frost, Build Soil – A Political Pastoral, 1932. – Alas, merely territorial revolutions went on and on. – JZ, 2.4.09. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: I have been ever of opinion that revolutions are not to be evaded.” – Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1884. – Quoted in Andrews Quotes, under the heading: “Revolution: join it.” – As if all Revolutions had been quite just and quite justly carried out! – The first quite panarchistic revolution is still to come. And who would or could be quite disgusted with it and its results? - JZ, 8.5.08, 25.7.12.

REVOLUTION: I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” – Thomas Jefferson, to Madison, quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians. – The smallest and most effective rebellions are individual secessions. They do not wrong or harm anyone else and at most harm the secessionist himself, if the system he chooses to live under is worse than the one he seceded from. They would cause no political storms but would go on so frequently and harmlessly that they would become news only when they occurred in very great numbers from a particular regime. – JZ, 7.5.08. - Naturally, these secessions are only the first steps towards multiple and greatly different voluntary societies and communities under personal laws, i.e. full exterritorial autonomy, i.e., without claiming any territory monopolistically but merely their private or cooperative property rights. - JZ, 23.2.11. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: I preach self-will, not revolution. How could I want a revolution? Revolution is war; like all other war, it is a ‘prolongation of politics by other means’.“ – Hermann Hesse, Self-Will, 1919. – True for the usual territorial and violent revolutions. – Neither the existing territorial establishment nor the new revolutionary territorial establishment can, possibly, satisfy all the rightful and different aspirations of the diverse groups in the population of any large territory. – JZ, 7.5.08. – DIS.

REVOLUTION: I would rather be a counter-revolutionary or upholder of the status quo, if there were no other way, than a revolutionary with the kind of revolutionary aims and methods adopted by some who call themselves revolutionaries. – To each his own kind of revolution. To the status quo advocates its continuance, over themselves, under full exterritorial autonomy. This may be the most suitable “punishment” for them. - JZ, 4.8.86, 17.5.08, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution.” – Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861. – In the Seldes version the underlined “the” is missing. (*) - Luckily, full monetary freedom, so far desired only by a very small minority, would only require a monetary and not a bloody revolution. It would also pay the participants, right away, at least in alternative, optional and market-rated means of exchange and value standards. And in the additional jobs and sales so attained, under optional sound value standard reckoning rather than the fraudulent value standard under the legal tender power of the monopoly money of monetary despotism, which makes inflations, deflations and stagflations possible – and numerous economic crises. – Neither the North nor the South were clearly only defending individual rights and liberties in their Civil War. Thus the Civil War was bloody and long. - But which right is clearly written into any territorial constitution, clearly enough that even legislators recognize and respect it? – In practice, the minority of ruling politicians do largely deprive the majority and other minorities of many of their rights, territory-wide and do not recognize even this as a justification for a revolution. – Lincoln would not even permit peaceful secession, for dissenting whites and blacks. (Nor would the Southerners have permitted the exterritorial secessions of blacks, especially of their slaves.) He did not recognize the right to secede and to rule themselves for all slaves and for all Southerners who wanted to secede. – For that would have threatened his power-system, with him at the top of the territorial pyramid, of the federal subjects of the United States, who were all too disunited and still are, except coercively. - JZ, 3.1.08, 7.5.08, 23.2.11, 24.7.12. – (*) Talks is cheap. His later contrary actions were very expensive, in blood and money. – JZ, 30.3.09. - RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN A REVOLUTION, PEACEFUL BECAUSE EXTERRITORIAL SECESSIONISM, FOR SLAVES & TAX SLAVES, TOO! MAJORITIES, MINORITIES, DEMOCRACY, UNITY, NATION-BUILDING, TERRITORIAL FEDERALISM & STATISM, SLAVERY, CIVIL WAR, LINCOLN, SOUTHERN STATES

REVOLUTION: If one would make a thorough revolution, one must attack things and relationships, destroy property and the State. Then there would be no need to destroy men.” - Mikhail A. Bakunin, Gesammelte Werke, II, p.87. - An attack on property is an attack upon men, women and children as well as old and sick people. Only the coercive and monopolistic features of States, their territorialism, has to be destroyed. All their voluntary features should be respected, even by those who prefer other arrangements for their own affairs. - JZ, 13.10.02. - Under full self-ownership and other property rights there would be no territorial State. - JZ, 27.11.02. – Any degree of statism – only for their kind of statists. Any degree of liberty for all kinds of liberty lovers. Underground or on black markets many panarchistic liberties and rights are already practised – but not freely and openly, competitively, thus assuring e.g. quality goods and services, as much as is humanly possible and likely. – JZ, 24.7.12. - STATE, ANARCHISM, PROPERTY, DIS., BAKUNIN

REVOLUTION: In Anarchist theory, ‘revolution’ means the moment when the structure of authority is loosed (loosened? – JZ), so that free functioning can occur. The aim is to open areas of freedom and to defend them. …” - Paul Goodman, N.Y. TIMES MAGAZINE, 14.7.69. – Can territorial rule be loosened or only abolished? I hold that just like compulsory State membership or subordination ought to be replaced by complete voluntarism (for all but criminals with victims and other aggressors), so territorial rule should be completely replaced by the self-government or self-management of exterritorially autonomous communities and societies of volunteers. Nothing else would be quite as just, liberating, reasonable and peace-promoting. – JZ, 7.5.08, 24.7.12. - Ultimately, the independent and decentralized canton, community or society of volunteers could come down to a single individual, just wishing to act as a sovereign individual on as free a market as he will want and find or establish around himself or herself, together with like-minded people. - JZ, 23.2.11, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: In revolutions authority remains with the greatest scoundrels.” - Georges Jacques Danton. - True for territorial revolutions as for territorial States. - JZ, 13.10.02. – Under panarchism, polyarchism etc. the honest people will sort themselves out and arrange for competitive and effective protection services against the remaining dishonest people. On the free markets, so established, it will also be much easier to maintain oneself by honest jobs, honest production and sales and thus there will be less poverty driving people to crimes. There will also be more knowledge of and appreciation of the fundamental principles of individual rights, liberties and justice, because then they can be freely and successfully applied already among the first volunteers, whose examples will then act as light-towers for more and more of the rest. – J.Z., 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: It is a tragic paradox when the path to righteousness becomes the road to lawlessness. But the right to rebel is an elemental human right, just as the right to repress rebellion is an elemental public right.” – Israel Zangwill, Address, Woman Suffrage, March 28, 1912. – Quoted in Seldes. - Only a quite rightful government would have the right to repress a rebellion against it. And who has ever heard or read of or experienced such a territorial government? If it is only a government of volunteers, all free to secede from it, then a rebellion against it is only a hypothetical absurdity. And when outsiders attack it then it would be an unjustified aggression, not a rebellion. – JZ, 8.5.09, 24.7.12. – DIS.

REVOLUTION: It is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons. And the victorious party, if it does not wish to have fought in vain, must maintain it rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.” – Lenin, The State and Revolution, p.48. – Well, at least he was frank about his kind of revolution. – JZ, 10.5.08. – DICTATORSHIP OVER THE PROLETARIAT UNDER THE PRETENCE OF PROVIDING A DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT, COMMUNIST STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

REVOLUTION: It seems that no matter how grand the vision, there will always be some who can imagine no means of implementation other than grabbing a gun and holding it to somebody’s head (‘revolution or reform’).” – Taylor Redford, THE CONNECTION 96, p.54, of 2 Aug. 81. – FORCE, COERCION, COMPULSION, TERRITORIALISM, VIOLENCE

REVOLUTION: Kann es eine Revolution geben, die allein durch den Teil gemacht wird, der sie will? - Johann Benjamin Erhard, 1795, in Rezension ueber Fichte's Beitrag ... - Und der die Rechte aller anderen nicht antastet. - JZ 10.9.92. (Can there be a revolution which is undertaken only by those who want it? - J. B. Erhard. - And who do not infringe the rights of all others. - JZ) For territorialists this is an unrealizable utopia. For panarchists, polyarchists etc. it will be a daily observation or individual practice and experience. – JZ, 24.7.12. – Q.

REVOLUTION: Let each make any revolution to his own liking – for himself and, at the same time, let nobody make any revolution for the supposed benefit of others. – JZ, 7/72. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: Making a revolution is more like waging peace than war.” – T. E. Lawrence. – “Can be would be more correct than “is”. – JZ, 8.6.82. - Untrue only for territorial revolutions, but true for exterritorial ones for volunteers only. They would even let the old regime be continued - by and for its remaining volunteers only. That would serve these "conservatives" right - namely, having to live in the mess they made, this time having to foot all the bills themselves. - JZ, 23.2.11. – DIS. – VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. THE COMPULSION & MONOPOLISM OF TERRITORIALISM

REVOLUTION: Men seldom, or rather never for a length of time and deliberately, rebel against anything that does not deserve rebelling against.” – Carlyle, Essays: Goethe’s Works. – I would deny that e.g. for most communist revolutions. – JZ, 7.5.08. – Quoted in Seldes, The Great Quotations. - Even under the Czarist regime Russia was already fast advancing. Apart from one of the usual pitfalls of a territorial State, namely e.g. war, bureaucracy, enforced centralization and tribute levies. - JZ, 23.2.11, 24.7.12. - DIS., CZARISM, RUSSIA

REVOLUTION: Most revolutions and most revolutionaries are much better at destroying properties and relationships, institutions, rights and liberties, than at building or establishing, recognizing or allowing new and better institutions and constitutions and protecting individual rights and liberties and institutions built upon them. Most introduce just another form of territorialism and not necessarily a better one, although that might have been their original intention and motivation. A quite rightful revolutionary and liberating program has, apparently, still to be developed or published. It could avoid much bloodshed and destruction, perhaps even any bloodshed and destruction. I hold that it should introduce permanent one-man revolutions, where each person chooses and practises his preferred system, together with like-minded people only, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. Then each such group could be as progressive, reactionary or stagnant as it wants to be, changing only in accordance with its own public opinion. No one would remain tied to the community or society that he had once chosen for himself. He could secede and establish or select another one for himself, i.e., engage in a one-man revolution, as far as his own affairs are concerned. – JZ, 3.8.06, 30.10.07, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: Most revolutions are just fights on who is to be the territorial tax collector. – JZ, 6.10.75, 31.7.78, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: Most revolutions are just like fevers, eliminating reason and tolerance, increasing suffering, but, alas, not physically incapacitating the sufferers but making them belligerent, with all the different types or revolutionaries fighting - not only the common enemy, the territorial State establishment, but also each other, because each group wants to achieve exclusive territorial domination. – JZ, 25.9.84, 7.5.08. – Compare Goethe’s remark: “There is no more terrible sight to behold than ignorance in action.

REVOLUTION: Movements that attract those who are not good enough for established institutions as well as those who are too good for them.” – G. B. Shaw. – Why not to each the institutions that he favors for himself, at the own cost and risk, rather than attempting to establish or maintain one territorial institution for all, although it will never be able to satisfy all? Only as territorialists are governments and various revolutionary and reform groups at loggerheads. This in spite of the vast example set by religious freedom and tolerance, after a prolonged era of religious intolerance. – JZ, 8.5.08, 24.7.12. – TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SYSTEMS, ALL ONLY FOR THEIR VOLUNTEERS. Q.

REVOLUTION: Nearly all the revolutions and great changes in the modern world have a financial origin.” – Richard Cobden, quoted by Ralph Raico in JLS., Sum.77, p.181. – Rather, they occur under financial and monetary despotism – when, as a result of governmental and legalized wrongful, harmful and irrational "monetary policy" or "currency policy" all too many of their subjects are unemployed, “un-financial”, illiquid and close to bankrupt, just like the territorial government itself. – We could expect significant positive changes in this situation once complete monetary and financial freedom are introduced, even if at first only among some volunteers. – JZ, 7.5.08, 20.10.08. 23.2.11, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: No revolution can be regarded as successful if it does not lead to progress.” – Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, Chatto & Windus, London, 1945, p.25. – However, it may cost so much in lives, freedom and destruction, in the usual spontaneous, popular and prejudiced and violent territorial revolutions, that this price is too high for the limited progress achieved, if any. – Usually more could have been achieved much easier in other ways. We are still very far from having achieved a science for protective, defensive, liberating and revolutionary efforts. – The most neglected factor in them was, usually, the monetary and financial one. Full monetary and financial freedom could have prevented most violent revolutions and also most despotisms, against which revolutions were directed. - The second neglected factor was ignoring the exterritorial autonomy alternatives for volunteers and continuing with the usual territorial wrongs, coercion and irrationalities. - JZ, 7.5.08, 23.2.11. – PROGRESS

REVOLUTION: No revolution can count on success if it does not speedily spread beyond the individual to all other nations.” - Mikhail A. Bakunin, Gesammelte Werke, II, p.91. - That is like saying that no marriage or contract can be satisfactory until all of them are. - JZ, 27.11.02. - Such notions drive territorial despotism to the heights of absurdity and wrongs. - JZ, 27.11.02. - Compare all the wrongs, internally and externally, of State Socialist and territorial Communism since 1917 in Russia and its international “liberation” attempts. - JZ, 23.2.11. – The Soviet rulers managed to threaten the “proletarians” of the West with nuclear annihilation, while pretending that they would liberate them, while the Western territorial regimes threatened the victims of Soviet territorial despotism with nuclear annihilation, instead of aiming to liberate them. These and other contradictions were never sufficiently discussed in public. – J.Z., 24.7.12. –p INTERNATIONAL, WORLD REVOLUTION, INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIALISM, UNIFORMITY, CONFORMISM INTERNATIONALIZED, DIS., MARRIAGES, DIS., COMMUNISM, SOVIETS, NUCLEAR STRENGTH OR THREATS AGAINST THE WRONG TARGETS FROM BOTH SIDES, APPARENTLY CONSIDERING INVOLUNTARY SUBJECTS AS PROPERTY OF THE OPPOSING REGIME. PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

REVOLUTION: No revolutionary should usurp legislative power – except over himself. – JZ, 4.8.90. – As territorial revolutionary he tends to be too radical, intolerant, aggressive murderous and destructive. As exterritorial revolutionary he can be as radical, stupid or reactionary as he wants to be and either would achieve some positive results for his kind of volunteers or he would still only wrong and harm himself and his like-minded voluntary followers. – JZ, 17.5.08, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: Not religion but revolution is the opium of the people.” – Weil – JZ tr. of: “Nicht die Religion, die Revolution ist Opium fuer das Volk.” – Only territorial revolutions act as opium for the people. Their exterritorial and individualistic revolutionary options will, like coffee and tea, help to stimulate rational and moral minds. They will release creative energies and minimize the all-over the effect of irrational and moral ideas – simply by confining them to the volunteers who suffer under them. Under territorialism the worst people, ideas and opinions do often get to the top and are coercively applied to the populations of whole countries. – JZ, 4.7.92, 12.5.08.

REVOLUTION: Nothing is clearer in history than the adoption by successful rebels of the methods they were accustomed to condemn in the forces they deposed.” – Will and Ariel Durant. - They, too, as a rule, are territorialists. - JZ, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: Oppressed people are frequently very oppressive when first liberated. … They know best two positions, Somebody’s foot on their neck or their foot on somebody’s neck.” – Florence Kennedy - The bring revenge rather than enlightenment and liberation. The territorial model almost assures that. - JZ, 23.2.11. – TERRITORIALISM, RULE OR BE RULED

REVOLUTION: Our studies of the preparatory stages of all revolutions bring us to the conclusion that not a single revolution has originated in parliaments or in any other representative assembly. All began with the people.” – Peter Kropotkin, Modern Science and Anarchism, 1913. - And the effective spokesman or catalyst for "the people" may be a single individual, as the stuttering journalist Camille Desmoulins was, for the French Revolution, when, in the open air free speech centre, then in Paris, in the Palais Royale, he called the Parisians to arms. - JZ, 23.2.11. - PARLIAMENTS, PEOPLE, MASSES

REVOLUTION: Panarchies represent one-man revolutions, i.e., rightful, voluntary and peaceful revolutions. They have also the power to undermine all territorial States, no matter how large and powerful and to prevent all other revolutions or transform them into just and non-violent ones. They could also transform defensive wars into mere police-actions against the real war criminals. – JZ, 20.6.92, 12.5.08. – If their possibility and potential becomes realized, somewhere, at least for a while, then interest in them could come to almost explode and then they could come to be realized widely, spreading very fast. – They would also sort out, very fast, the successes and the failures of revolutionary attempts, spreading the successes and diminishing the failures. - JZ, 20.6.92, 12.5.08, 23.2.11. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: Read your textbooks. Most revolutions are lost after they have been won.” – Harry Harrison, Starworld, p.208. – They are militarily won or, anyhow, by force of arms or non-violently won, but then politically, economically and socially lot for want of a correct and detailed program. This allows all the old flawed ideas, prejudices and institutions to become revived and to create the same problems, once again. – JZ, 18.9.07, 22.2.11. - IGNORANCE GENUINE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & OF THE EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY ALTERNATIVES, AS WELL AS OF QUITE RIGHTFUL MILITIA FORCES, SOUND REVOLUTION & ENLIGHTENMENT PLATFORMS, OF THE MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM ALTERNATIVES AND CONTINUANCE OF REVENGE & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY "POLICIES", AMONG MANY OTHER WRONGS & OMISSIONS.

REVOLUTION: Revolution - In extreme cases, when peaceful remedies are not provided and individual acts of resistance are insufficient, the right to resist becomes a right and duty to revolt against a tyrannical government and its few voluntary supporters, if this is done without offending against the individual human rights and the natural rights of rational beings. - Comment: The suppression of these rights has to be regarded as a declaration of war against mankind. Revolutionaries who know, use, and respect these rights, particularly rights 20/1, 32 and 41, could carry out a revolution against a dictator with relative ease. - All revolutions which do not respect these rights are to the same degree not justified and deserve to be suppressed. - Rights 18-21 provide opportunities for rapid but peaceful revolutionary changes for those who desire them. Wherever they are respected revolutions are neither justified nor necessary. – From the human rights declaration in PEACE PLANS No. 4, article 52, June 1965, here somewhat revised, 24.7.12. - PP 4 is reproduced in - and also in PEACE PLANS 589/90, together with over 130 other private human rights declarations. Ibid. - JZ, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: Revolution after all is merely accelerated evolution.” – Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p.659. – Rightful and rational revolutions! – Wrongful revolutions can also hold up or prevent rapid evolution and lead backwards rather than forwards. – JZ, 29.3.94. – The remark is correct only for the voluntaristic and exterritorial revolutions of panarchism, including even one-man revolutions, whose best feature is that they do apply only to those individuals who made their own revolutionary choice only on their own affairs. – JZ, 11.5.08. - EVOLUTION

REVOLUTION: Revolution and civil war are the ultimate remedy for unpopular rule.” – Mises, Omnipotent Government, p.50. – Why make bloody revolutions and civil wars possible and likely in the first place, by insisting on territorial rule and outlawing individual and group secessions and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers under personal laws? With dissenters free to secede, affairs would not come to the boiling point and much bloodshed and destruction. Recognition of individual sovereignty, individual secessionism - and of the free communities resulting from this, all without territorial monopoly, although, possibly, spread world-wide for their volunteers - would make peaceful changes and “revolutions” possible, even for individuals and small groups. – Experimental freedom was successful in all other spheres. Why still outlaw it in the spheres of political, economic and social systems, now territorially monopolized by governments? – They are the ultimate and peaceful measure to cope with regimes that are becoming unpopular and will lead to them remaining popular, but only with their remaining and future volunteers. – Large scale violence is never the ultimate remedy. It is always best avoided altogether, if this can be done. - JZ, 7.5.08, 24.7.12. – PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: revolution carried out by force leaves force in command of the ensuing situation.” - Herbert Read, Anarchy and Order, p.81. – FORCE, VIOLENCE, COERCION, COMPULSION VS. LIBERATION OF ALL FACTIONS OR PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: Revolution in its original liberal and radical significance is revolution toward, rather than against, centralization. … its object is, in fact, the capture of institutions to redress grievances.” (*) – Alex Comfort, “Authority and Delinquency. A study in the psychology of power”, 1950, 1970, p.97, a book largely on the delinquency of authority. – (*) Only to introduce, in practice, even more new ones, under continued territorialism – JZ, 15.9.07, 23.2.11. - & CENTRALIZATION

REVOLUTION: Revolution is a trivial shift in the emphasis of suffering.” – Tom Stoppard, quoted by Barbara Rowe, A Book of Quotes. – Most territorial revolutions amount only to a trivial shift. – JZ, 22.6.92, 23.2.11. – Because of the lack of a quite rightful and sensible revolutionary program. – JZ, 17.5.08. – The first consistently libertarian and also tolerant revolutions are still to come. They will have little in common with most of the past ones. – Revolutionaries, who only strive for exterritorial autonomy for themselves and for all other groups of like-minded volunteers will make a very great difference. They will be comparable to mere reforms that are rapidly introduced, but all of them only among those volunteers, who favor them and are willing to bear their costs and risks. - J.Z., 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: Revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, quoted by Mussolini, - Seldes, p.836. – Most revolutions are a hotchpotch of different ideas. The revolutionaries never sort themselves out, sufficiently and tolerantly, as long as they persist with their territorialist “thinking” and the correspondent intolerance towards each other. – JZ, 20.10.08. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: Revolution? Property changes hands.” – Georg Kaiser. - JZ tr. of the German original: “Revolution? Der Besitz wechselt die Taschen.” – If that were quite true then every embezzlement, theft and robbery or inheritance would constitute a revolution. – To each his own revolution – at his own risk and expense! – Massive and coercive expropriations, like e.g. taxation, inflations and nationalization, certainly do not promote freedom and realize rights. - JZ, 7.5.08. – DIS.

REVOLUTION: Revolutionary violence will be reduced to a minimum if you recognize the right of each revolutionary to win his own revolution by making it only for himself – through individual secession. – JZ 4.12.76. – With subsequent re-association only together with like-minded volunteers, under personal laws and without any territorial monopoly claims. – JZ, 17.5.08, 24.7.12. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: Revolutionary: An oppressed person waiting for the opportunity to become an oppressor.” – Anonymous. – True for most territorialist revolutionaries. Not for those who aspire merely to achieve exterritorial autonomy for their own kind of volunteers. – JZ, 04. - REVOLUTIONARY

REVOLUTION: revolutions grow out of the disintegration of consent (*), not out of violence. The reason violence is so often associated with revolution is that few have tested the power of government or the consent of the governed – except those who in their anger and frustration have been prepared to use violence.” – John M. Swomley, Jr. –– When they do merely resort to violence then they are mostly easily defeated by the armed forces of territorial States. They ought to adopt a tolerant panarchistic platform, attractive even to these armed forces, so that desertion and fraternalization with the revolutionaries would become likely and violent clashes unlikely. - JZ, 23.2.11. - (*) Rather out of the denial of consensual relationships for communities, societies and governance systems of volunteers only. – JZ, 6.4.91, 12.5.08. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder.” – G. B. Shaw. – quoted in Bingham, Men & Affairs, p.264. - G. B. Shaw, Superman, The Revolutionist’s Handbook, 1903. – Quoted in Seldes. - Not always but all too often, because they continued with territorialism and had no sound and comprehensive liberation program. - JZ, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: Revolutions only from the top of the power pyramid are usually wrong, useless, or all too limited, just like those mainly only supported from the bottom from the “masses” or the mobs. The best, the most peaceful, radical, tolerant and liberating revolution is the one that would set all innovators free to establish all the alternative institutions that they favor for themselves and all those, which other volunteers wish for their own affairs, including the xyz statists, not only the great varieties among anarchists and libertarians. In other words, they should leave all others alone to go on with their own kinds of revolutions or reforms, stagnation or reaction - among themselves. Under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy for all, this would be rightful, rational and practicable. Sufficient precedents exists and should no longer be ignored. – JZ, 18.4.92, 15.2.08, 23.2.11, 24.7.12. - PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, DEPRESSIONS, DEFLATIONS, INFLATIONS, STAGFLATIONS, ECONOMIC CRISES

REVOLUTION: See: Saturation Revolution by Kerry Thornley, July 1968, plan 225, pages 36 - 37, in ON PANARCHY III, in PEACE PLANS 507.

REVOLUTION: Some people think that the more of their opponents they kill the more revolutionary they are. – JZ, 8/72. – The record in total number of victims may be held by the Chinese Communists. (78 million, according to a recent estimate I saw on Facebook. – JZ, 24.7.12.) – To my knowledge no one has as yet been held responsible for their mass murders. - JZ, 7.5.08. - One could rather say that the less people are killed in them and the less property is destroyed and the faster they are realized, the more rightful they have been. - But that can be fully achieved only for exterritorialist revolutions, all for volunteers and their communities and societies only. - JZ, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: Territorial revolutions largely fail and almost must fail because in these revolutions each revolutionary group tries to impose its own particular utopia upon all the others. Some of these alternative societies are even worse than the territorial political regime they have overthrown. Mostly only the lowest common denominator wins – for a while. Even in a democracy the worst types rise to the top and stay there for all too long. Therefore, revolutions should all be permissible only for volunteers. And such revolution could and should be greatly facilitated and made bloodless and tolerable - by simply allowing groups of like-minded volunteers to secede, exterritorially and to try to realize their ideals among themselves. Nothing beats free competition and free enterprise and consumer sovereignty – or freedom to experiment, in this sphere, either. – JZ, 105.08. PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIAL COMPULSION & MONOPOLIES

REVOLUTION: The American Revolution as a Successful Revolution.” – by Irving Kristol. – “Sees the American Revolution as the only truly successful revolution; a true revising and reordering of the political arrangements of the society, not just a rebellion or bloody ‘liberation’ or revolution betrayed.” – Laissez Faire Books, catalogue, Sum.76. – It did not liberate e.g. slaves, Red Indians and women. And by now its all too limited bill of rights amendments have been largely legislated away. – Its despotic decision-making on war and peace was never abolished. Nor did it ever completely abolish monetary despotism and its territorial monopoly claim. It, too, was a very flawed revolution and did wrong many of the monarchists. – JZ, 8.5.08, 23.2.11. Panarchist liberators would have permitted the remaining adherents of monarchism to remain ruled by their beloved monarch, instead of expropriating them and driving them out of the country, or fighting against them. Under that kind of voluntarism slavery and racism (*) would also have been ended and the Civil War and the growth of the “Welfare State” and “Warfare State” would have been avoided. – (*) There would have been Black, Red Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Indian panarchies, as well as “White” and racially mixed or “coloured” panarchies as well as a variety of panarchies in which racial and ethnic differences would be ignored but in which various religions or ideologies would matter and others with quite cosmopolitan views and institutions. - J.Z., 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: the central idea of revolution, which is the foundation of freedom, that is, the foundation of a body politic which guarantees the space where freedom can appear.” – Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, p.121. - Apparently, she remained unaware of the drawbacks of territorial revolutions that are merely continuing the inherent drawbacks of all territorial States. Under territorial revolutions freedom cannot appear undisturbed among dissenting individuals and small to large minorities. The new territorial revolutionary regimes are usually as little truly representative as were the regimes they replaced and often they were even less so. – JZ, 12.5.08. - TERRITORIALISM

REVOLUTION: The country shall be independent, and we will be satisfied with nothing short of it. - Samuel Adams, remark in "Small confidential companies." - William Gordon, The History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment, of the Independence of the United States of America, vol. 1, entry for March 9, 1774, p.347 (1788, reprinted 1969). - A country's independence is not my and your independence. Majorities often were and are satisfied with all too little independence, fooled by still popular slogans, errors, prejudices, misconceptions, wrong assumptions and conclusions as well as flawed definitions. - JZ, 13.10.02, 4.7.12. - REVOLUTIONARY WAR, PEOPLE OR POPULATIONS, DIVERSITY OR COMPULSORY UNITY, TERRITORIALISM OR EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM OR LEGALIZED COERCION? INDEPENDENCE COLLECTIVIZED OR INDIVIDUALIZED, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

REVOLUTION: The danger to which the success of revolutions is most exposed, is that of attempting them before the principles on which they proceed, and the advantages to result from them, are sufficiently seen and understood.” - Thomas Paine – Even by now libertarians have not yet compiled and published, to my knowledge, a good enough libertarian revolution, liberation and defence program. Or are you aware of one? – What I could find of such ideas I assembled, as far as I could, in my two peace books. Both are still record non-sellers and non-read books, although already available free online for years, at – There still seems to be not enough interest in these subjects. - JZ 5.1.08, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: The Declaration of Independence establishes, what the heart of every American acknowledges, that the people – mark you, the people – have always an inherent, paramount, inalienable right to change their governments, whenever they thing that it will minister to their happiness. That is a revolutionary right.” – Wendell Phillips. – Quoted by Seldes. – So W. P. subscribed, too, to the myth of “the people” as if it were a real entity. The American Revolution did not liberate slaves, Red Indians and women. Only groups, societies or communities of volunteers deserve the term of people, or nations and each of these groups has the right to make its own revolutions, at its own risk and expense, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, interlinked, as much as it likes, with similar groups in other countries. – All individual liberties and rights still remain to be collected and combined and optimally expressed and published in an ideal declaration of this kind. - JZ 8.5.08, 24.7.12. – PEOPLE? POPULATIONS IN ALL THEIR VARIETIES

REVOLUTION: The excuse for a revolution is always to “free the people” or to give “all power to the people”. But revolutionary heroes almost always turn out to be as bad as, and usually worse than, the oppressive government they overthrow.” – Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.104. – The false dream they are pursuing, one which ultimately defeats them, is the illusion that there exists only onepeople” in the population of a whole territory. In reality, the whole human spectrum is more or less represented there, in all its varieties and the rulers as well as the revolutionaries merely try to impose a compulsory and uniform color scheme all these various groups, which is easy only in map making but difficult and costly and ultimately self-defeating in practical politics. None of the different and often quite antagonistic groups is clearly aiming only at genuine self-government or self-management for all these different groups – all only under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy. Thus they create their own greatest problems and act like their own worst enemies. Their difficulties would mostly disappear - once they recognized individual sovereignty, individual and group secessionism and personal law communities and societies of volunteers, all of them exterritorially autonomous. Let all of them cook their own stews and try to eat and digest and to get healthy on them. – JZ, 7.5.08, 20.10.08, 24.7.12. - These difficulties are well exemplified by the current Tea Parties in the USA, Australia and Japan. But they existed largely before in any country with numerous diverse parties or only 2 somewhat opposite main political parties. In the latter and most simplest case: Why should the representatives of party A ever come to rule over party members and voters of part B, or those of party B over those of party A, instead of each party only over its own members, supporters, followers, voters and tax payers? Seeing the often close election returns, as in e.g. Australia, why should the 51% rule also over the 49% or the 49 % rule also over the 51%, instead of the 51% merely and genuinely self-governing themselves, just like the 49% should be free to do? When one takes the several stages of voting into consideration, then the actually ruling class that decides consists only of a very small fraction of the population or voters. When 2/3 are entitled to vote, 2/3 do vote, the elected get 2/3 of the votes and then make their decisions with a 2/3 majority, the reduction to towards the final vote comes to 2 x 2x 2 x 2 = 16 over 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 81 = round 1/5th. That is then called "the people" ruling themselves in "self-government". A 2/3rd majority is relatively rare. - Consider also that the "representatives" in parliaments are, mostly, under party discipline and under pressure by the particular spleens of their party leader. - Also under the pressure from numerous competing parties and diverse mass media and pressure groups, representing special interests, usually contrary to those of the majority of the population. - Territorialism cannot get away from these wrongs and absurdities. - No matter how hard and honestly they tried, they could never truly represent all the diverse individuals and groups in a country. – DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION, Q., VOTING, TERRITORIALISM - JZ, 23.2.11, 24.7.12. 

REVOLUTION: The force sufficient to overthrow an oppressive government is usually sufficient to establish one equally or more oppressive in its place.” John C. Calhoun, A Disquisition on Government, C. G. Post edition, p.47. – Yes, when the revolutionaries or freedom fighters are conservative or ignorant and prejudiced enough to want to continue only with territorial politics. – JZ, 1.10.07. - FORCE, POWER, STRENGTH, TERRITORIALISM

REVOLUTION: The Founders of America were the only real revolutionaries of the last two hundred years; all other revolutionaries were pretenders because what they sought was power over people. … The Founders [of America ] sought not power over people but the unleashing of the power in the individual.” (*) – From an address by Jeffrey St. John, Oct. 21, 1969, Kings College, Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., as inserted in the Congressional Record, (Oct. 28, 1969) by Rep. John R. Rarick (La.), p. E 90029. Here quoted from: MONETARY NOTES by Walter E. Spahr, XXX, No. 1, Jan. 2, 1970, p.2. - Alas, they did not go far enough in unleashing the power of the individual, neither for negroes nor whites, not even for women. Their notions of individual rights and liberties were and are still very incomplete. – And even that all too ignorant, flawed and incomplete statement of individual rights in the bill of rights Amendments to the Constitution, was never fully realized and the later amendments were all too flawed, once again. - JZ, 31.10.07. - All were also largely legislated away through "positive" legislation. Instance, the estimated ca. 10.000 to 20,000 anti-gun laws in the U.S.A. Only the fundamental wrong, its territorialism, which is as opposite as possible to individualism and individual sovereignty, was carefully preserved. - Nevertheless, all too many "Constitutionalists" are still as faithful to this faulty and wrongful constitution, as Christians are faithful to their faulty and wrongful Bible. - JZ, 23.2.11. – (*) How many of them did clearly advocate individual sovereignty and secessionism and full exterritorial autonomy or personal law for all societies, communities and governance systems of volunteers? – J.Z., 24.7.12. – AMERICANA REVOLUTION, CONSTITUTIONALISM, BILLS OF RIGHTS, AMENDMENTS, POWER & PEOPLE, DIS., Q.

REVOLUTION: The government of a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.” – Maximelian de Robespierre, Speech before the Convention, February 5, 1794. – Quoted in Seldes. - An infamous and powerful territorial tyrant and terrorist presenting himself as a freedom fighter! He offered much despotism rather than liberty. Which liberty and rights did he clearly understand and represent? He blamed persons for conditions resulting from the paper money inflation in combination with price controls. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1958 edition, already in June 1794 trade was paralyzed by the inflation and manufactures shut down. In his last speech, one of 4 hours, on July 26, 1794, he made further general accusations but did not name any names, so that everyone felt threatened by it and thus he was declared outlawed and executed on July 28th 1794. But the inflation went on to 1796. I do not know whether, after his terror regime was ended, any more people were guillotined simply for not accepting the legal tender assignats as if they were really at par with their equivalent rare metal coins. That was usually taken as a proof that they were enemies of the “republic” rather than merely of its monetary despotism. – JZ, 8.5.08, 23.2.11, 24.7.12. – DESPOTISM, TYRANNY & INFLATION, DIS.

REVOLUTION: the greater the violence, the less the revolution.” – Bart de Ligt. – The panarchistic and voluntaristic revolutions of the individual and group secessionists involves and causes, directly, no violence and bloodshed at all. Only the attempts to suppress this right or liberty will lead to violence and bloodshed. After the huge sacrifices to territorial revolutions in the past and to “peaceful” territorial States, is it not high time to consider rightful and peaceful voluntary and exterritorial alternatives or experimental freedom alternatives to them? – JZ, 11.5.08, 23.2.11. - VIOLENCE, DIS., Q., BLOODSHED

REVOLUTION: The greater these fears, the greater the degree of government tyranny which people will tolerate, even support. Civil disorder leads to more government, not less, It may topple one government, but it creates a situation in which people desire another, and stronger. Hitler’s regime followed the chaos of the Weimar years. Russian communism is a second example, a lesson for which the anarchists of Kronstadt paid dear. Napoleon is a third. Yet many radicals, and some anarchists, talk and act as though civil disruption were the road to freedom.” – David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, p.204. – Non-territorial revolutions, reduced to individual secessionism and voluntary alternative institutions, would not cause any chaos or disruptions. – Has D. F. taken them as yet into consideration, anywhere? Or is he still stuck upon the concept of a “limited” but still territorially monopolistic government, like his father, Milton Friedman, was? And, likewise, upon an exclusive and forced currency, “properly” managed by a despotic central bank? – JZ, 8.5.08.

REVOLUTION: The lesson of all history is that men are not to be trusted with the power of life and death over their fellows; and any revolution which claims for itself any such power carries in its bosom the seeds of counter-movements which will bring in again the supremacy of the party of reaction.” – Ernest Howard Crosby, quoted in Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.335. – Only panarchistic revolutionaries can get along peacefully with each other and even with the remaining rump of the old government, once it is reduced to its volunteers, and exterritorial autonomy. The struggle between different revolutionary groups, all striving for territorial domination, weakens them and often leads them to defeat or only to the victory of an even worse regime than the one that was overthrown. – Rightful revolutions would, primarily, do away with territorial rule and introduce voluntary communities that are only exterritorially autonomous, of whatever kind they are otherwise. Then only their own members would have a right to complain about them – or not even that, seeing that then they would be free to secede from them. - JZ, 7.5.08. – POWER, RULERS, REPRESENTATION, TERRITORIALISM

REVOLUTION: The logical errors of the simple-minded ‘revolutionary’ view are as obvious as the actual results. Bryn Magee notes that the idea that nothing can be changed until everything is changed is self-contradictory. We are, as it were, in a ship at sea. Improvements can be made in its structure, but an attempt to change it all at once would be absurd.” - Robert Conquest, We & They, Civil & Despotic Cultures, Temple-Smith, London, 1980, p.163. – However, territories are large enough to permit many groups to undertake their own “radical experiments” among themselves without wronging or harming others. To each his own system, his own panarchy, as long as they do leave the panarchies of others alone! – JZ, 10.10.08. – DIS., REFORMS, RADICALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: The majoritarian, territorial, coercive revolutions should as far as possible be replaced by those of individuals and minorities, all aiming only to do their own things for and to themselves only. – JZ, 13.2.92, 12.5.08. – PANARCHISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUALISM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT

REVOLUTION: The majority of the people do not clearly see what they have to gain by a revolution, but they continually and in a thousand ways feel that they might lose by one.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, quoted in the editorial of GALAXY, June 64. – Thus revolutions should all be confined to volunteers and their exterritorially autonomous experiments under personal laws. – They would thus be leaving all other individual people in a territory and their groups of volunteers to their own and self-chosen futures, all quite free, subject only to sovereign individual choice, as consumers of or subscribers to “public”, “governmental” or “societal” services, or whole system package deals, free to either realize certain changes among themselves, while freely ignoring those they do not like at all or do not like sufficiently to wish to adopt them for their own affairs. The violent revolutions of the masses or of determined minorities would thus become reduced to peaceful and gradual one-man and minority group revolutions, rapid and thorough only for the individual volunteers and their associations. Thus they could be largely ignored by most of the population, unless the exterritorially autonomous alternative institutions of volunteers can demonstrate quite outstanding successes. Then, quite simply, many more people would join them or introduce the same changes in their own societies. – JZ, 8.5.08, 20.10.08, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: The more violence, the less revolution.” – Barthelemy de Ligt, Pour Vaincre Sans Violence. – VIOLENCE, NON-VIOLENCE

REVOLUTION: The only revolution worthwhile is the one-man revolution in the heart. Each one can make this by himself, and need not wait on a majority.” – Ammon Hennacy, a Catholic anarchist. - The individual requires all external liberties and rights, too, for his revolution to be a comprehensive one for himself and at least some liberties and rights to go as far as he wants to go with his revolution. Not only the victims of extermination camps were not free to engage in one-man revolutions. – JZ, 7.5.08.

REVOLUTION: The only true revolt is creation – the revolt against nothingness.” – Ortega Y Gasset, Mission of the Universe, quoted by Leonard E. Read in Castles in the Air, p.66. – And in THE FREEMAN, 10/73 & 11/74. - Territorialism and its numerous wrongful laws and institutions, its “order”, “uniformity” and authoritarian coercion, however camouflaged and "excused", are hardly a "nothingness". Every policeman or bureaucrat one encounters does concretely represent it, rather than you. - Territorial despotism is something that is very real but nothing that is moral and rational. To replace it merely with another kind of territorialism is both immoral and irrational, i.e. hardly a genuinely revolutionary and liberating action. Only exterritorialist revolutions by and for volunteers only could, possibly, release their full creative potential as revolutionaries and reformers, with their diverse factions then no longer obstructing each other or even fighting each other. They would even free the various factions making up each territorial regime of a country’s majority. They would offer them, too, the alternative institutions, systems and laws that they do prefer for themselves. But this time only at their own expense and risk. Thus they would find allies everywhere and very little fanatic resistance – except among quite immoral and irrational people. – Freedom to experiment was so far denied to creative people in the political, economic and social spheres. They were and are coercively kept in territorial kindergartens. They were confined to e.g. freedom of expression, poetry, art, song-writing, painting, sculpture, architecture, games, plays, watching, listening etc., which never appealed to the whole man but merely to hobbyists, private interests etc. – They were and are not free but manipulated or even chained citizens. – Some important individual rights and liberties are still territorially denied to them altogether. - JZ, 7.5.08, 23.2.11, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: The only worthwhile and just general revolution is the one which, as a result, would permit every ism and loyalty to be tolerantly practised – among its adherents. – JZ, 5.4.81. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: the people having ‘the right to raise up and shake off the existing government’, the ‘revolutionary right’ to change it.” – Abraham Lincoln, quoted in: George Seldes, in The Great Quotations. - But the Federal Government and the States of the USA have made sure that the National Guard is under their control and not self-managed or fully acquainted with all individual rights and liberties. – JZ, 8.5.08. - And individual and group exterritorial secessionism is not among the Amendments. The Civil War was fought even to repress geographical secessionism. (Which is not rightful enough.) The South had at least Free Trade on its side (not for the slaves, or self-ownership for them), while the North was still under Protectionism and also full of racial bias and discrimination. - JZ, 23.2.11, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: The people who boasted that they had made a revolution have always seen the next day that they had no idea what they were doing, that the revolution made did not in the least resemble the one they would have liked to make”, he wrote. “That is what Hegel calls the irony of history, an irony which few historic personalities escape.” – [Friedrich Engels] – Engels wrote, of course, thirty-two years before the Bolshevik Revolution and nearly fifty years before Stalin shackled his terrible power on the Soviet state. But, as Sakharov notes, his words eloquently apply to what happened in the Soviet Union.” – H. E. Salisbury, in notes to Sakharov’s “Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom, p.127. – Thus to each individual only his own kind of revolution, self-chosen and self-responsible, as would be possible via individual secessionism and full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, or panarchism. – JZ, 7.5.08. – “The people”, like “unified” “nation” States, are everywhere still largely a fiction, one standing for the reality of many different societies, races, religious, ideologies, traditions and customs, sometimes even embracing many people with different languages, e.g. in the Austrian Empire and in India. Even the territorial governments and their ruling parties are full of diverse factions, as is frequently demonstrated in the well-publicized leadership struggles. Nowhere are “the people” so far free to sort themselves out, one by one, sovereign individual sovereign individual, into the kind of societies, communities and governance systems which individual volunteers do prefer for themselves. Territorial nationalism and democracy are built upon some of the greatest lies and false pretences. – JZ, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: The point is that a well-handled revolution can take place so easily, so gently, that many do not even realize it has happened. Such, of course, is the desirable way.” – Mack Reynolds, Time Gladiator, p.153. – VOLUNTARISM CONTRACTARIANISM, ASSOCIATIONISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SELF-OWNERSHIP, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIALISM, ETC.

REVOLUTION: The purity of a revolution may last 14 days.” – Jean Cocteau, quoted in Hans Habe, Leben fuer den Journalismus, Bd. 4, S.270. – Often even merely for a day and it is right away impure if merely another territorial “revolutionary” government is established by it. – JZ, 20.6.92.

REVOLUTION: The purpose of a rightful revolution is to build something new, not to destroy something old. Neither the new institutions should be territorial and compulsory nor should the old ones remain territorial, monopolistic, compulsory, oppressive or aggressive towards their territorial involuntary victims or the subjects of other regimes. To the extent that the old institutions are no longer aggressive or oppressive but also confined to volunteers (under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy) they can and should remain for them, regardless of how much outsiders would still dislike or even hate them, with good reasons or motives or not. Victims of a regime from which they can freely secede, as individuals, or dissenting minorities, do have only themselves to blame. To console themselves, the outside critics should consider this continuance of the old regime, for its supporters, as their self-inflicted punishment or as the liberty of fools or crackpots or of ignorant and prejudiced statists, whose main religion is statism. Only territorial statism should no longer be tolerated. - JZ, 16.2.82, 7.5.08, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: The purpose of revolution, as the anarchist views it, is to eliminate power altogether and not to transfer it from one group to another.” – Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.573. – Correct for territorial power. Incorrect for power over the own affairs and those of like-minded volunteers. – JZ, 7.5.08. – So each and everyone the kind of social contract system that they do prefer for themselves. That excludes, naturally, any kind of intolerant, criminal or aggressive actions towards outsiders, while it permits every kind of internal authoritarianism, puritanism, licence and even violence – e.g. in duels – internally, always only among volunteers, under personal law and full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 24.7.12. – TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT ACTIONS & INTOLERANCE ONLY TOWARDS ALL INTOLERANT ACTIONS (TOWARDS OUTSIDERS). POWER, TERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIALITY, VOLUNTARISM, ASSOCIATIONISM.

REVOLUTION: The real liberators of men have not been the ignorant revolutionaries or radicals, but only those who have really increased human knowledge. Either Pasteur, Newton, Faraday or Lavoisier increased the amount of human freedom incomparably more than all revolutions and revolutionaries taken together.” – Pitirim A. Sorokin, Contemporary Sociological Theories Through the First Quarter of the Twentieth Century, Harper Torchbooks, 1928, p.451. – He underestimated the influence of those, who tried to discover the natural laws for human beings, their individual rights and liberties - and to realize them, at least among themselves, setting thereby attractive example to others. – JZ, 30.8.08, 23.2.11, 24.7.12. – LIBERATORS, REVOLUTIONARIES

REVOLUTION: The real revolution … a long process of change in the ideas and ideals on the part of the people.” – Vincent A. Drosdik III, The Berlin Observer, quoted in THE FREEMAN, 7/7. – Not only in their ideas and ideals but also in their activities and institutions. – JZ, 7.5.08. - The most radical change is that from territorial to exterritorial, from compulsory to voluntary, from monopolistic to competing laws and institutions, all peacefully coexisting in the same territory but all only for their supporters and at their risk and expense. - JZ, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: The revolution is the self-defence of those people who are offended against in their most holy rights.” – Lothar Bucher, NATIONALZEITUNG, 1890, 43, 395. – JZ tr. of: “Die Revolution ist die Notwehr des Volkes, welches in seinen heiligsten Recht gekraenkt ist.” - How holy or genuine are any rights and liberties to their supporters when they do not even bother to clearly declare them? Or when they try to force their limited understanding of them upon peaceful dissenters, who would rather do their own things among themselves? - JZ, 23.2.11. – DIS., INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

REVOLUTION: the revolution of one person is not always that of his neighbour, by far not, frequently they are irreconcilable.” – Simone Weil, quoted in a newsletter of the Mackay Gesellschaft, 10/74. – But this is only the case when both are territorialists. As exterritorialists they could each have their own and different revolution – while remaining good, tolerant and peaceful neighbors and even friends. – JZ, 7.5.08, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: The revolution that establishes tolerance is the only worthwhile and probably last revolution. - JZ, in pamphlet: TOLERANCE.

REVOLUTION: The revolution to end all revolutions will be the one in which there will be no revolt against how others run their own lives. – JZ, 7/72. – TOLERANCE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL – EXCEPT CRIMINALS WITH VICTIMS & OTHER AGGRESSORS

REVOLUTION: The revolution with all the knowledge on what is worth fighting for and how to win it, must win. It will have relatively little fighting to do. Especially under the panarchist banner declaring: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice. Who would still fight desperately against that aim? – Isn’t it high time for libertarian revolutionaries to adopt this platform? - JZ, 14.1.77, 7.5.08. - Or at least to discuss it thoroughly? - JZ, 23.2.11. – PANARCHISM, Q.

REVOLUTION: the revolutionaries of today are the oppressors of tomorrow; …” - Alexander Cordell, If You Believe the Soldiers. – All too true for most territorial revolutions. – JZ, 7.5.08.

REVOLUTION: the revolutionary ignores the total testimony of history about the natural course of revolution, through violence, to chaos, back to the starting point.” – Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus III, p.241. - All too true for territorial revolutions. - JZ, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of oppression, if they are strong enough, whether by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable.” – Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs, I, 1885. - Did Grant consider individual secession a "withdrawal" option? – Did he try to realize it? - JZ, 22. 11. 06. - RIGHTS, OPPRESSION, GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE, Q.

REVOLUTION: The total consumption of the rich is less than twenty per cent, that is, less than the total rise of national consumption of a five-year period. From this point of view, a revolution, which would be likely to halt economic progress for more than five years, does not appear to be an economically advantageous move for the working people. And I am not even talking of the blood-letting that is inevitable in a revolution. And I am not talking of the danger of the ‘irony of history’, about which Friedrich Engels wrote so well in his famous letter to V. Zasulich, the “irony’ that took the form of Stalinism in our country.” – Andrei D. Sakharov, Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom, p.69. – He, too, considered only territorial revolutions, i.e., those imposed upon peaceful dissenters and ideological opponents, not only the supposed or real exploiters and oppressors to be overthrown. – JZ, 7.5.08.

REVOLUTION: there is not such thing as revolutionary power, for all power is reactionary by nature: power corrupts both those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised; those who think they can conquer the State in order to destroy it, are unaware that the State overcomes all its conquerors; …” - Albert Meltzer, A New World in Our Hearts, p. 60. – Correct for territorial power over people with other ideals. Incorrect for exterritorial power over the own affairs and those of like-minded people, all volunteers, which is merely self-management “power” or authority. – JZ, 7.5.08, 23.2.11. -  POWER, VIOLENCE, OPPRESSION, TERRITORIALISM, TERRORISM, STATISM, VOLUNTARISM, SELF-DETERMINATION

REVOLUTION: There is nothing more explosive than a skilled population condemned to inaction. Such a population is likely to become a hotbed of extremism and intolerance, and be receptive to any proselytizing ideology, however absurd and vicious, which promises vast action.” – Eric Hoffer, “Automation, Leisure, and the Masses”, The Temper of Our Times, 1967. – But it offers also a chance for a liberating and tolerant program, embracing e.g. full monetary freedom and panarchism. – JZ, 15.11.85, 13.5.08. - Here Hoffer somewhat described the current "revolutions" by Arab intellectuals, not enlightened enough to have developed a sound and quite rightful revolutionary program for all their numerous diverse groups and thus for their whole society and culture, which was, at one stage in history, the leading one. Perhaps, so far, there is not even a single panarchist among them. Have any of the panarchist writings been translated into Arabic as yet and put online? On the other hand, many Arab intellectuals know e.g. English and French and are, insofar, not excluded from this knowledge, at least not to the extent that it is already offered online. - Without this knowledge and opportunity being applied there, I have also little hopes for these revolutions. They could even end in worse despotisms than they have presently overthrown or try to overthrow. - JZ, 23.2.11. - UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTALITARIANISM, ARABS, MUSLIMS, ISLAM, RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE & ITS EQUIVALENTS IN THE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SPHERES, ENLIGHTENMENT OPTIONS, INTEREST IN THE OWN AFFAIRS

REVOLUTION: They all want to achieve it, this revolution, but then nobody does, least of all those who call themselves revolutionaries because their revolutions change nothing but the master, the regime. Revolution cannot be commanded. There exists only one possible revolution and it’s the one that is made personally, the revolution that takes place within the individual, that develops in him slowly, with patience, with disobedience! The revolution is patience, it’s disobedience, it isn’t haste, it isn’t chaos, it isn’t what the demagogues with magic wands tell you. Pay no attention to those who promise you miracles. To those who say they will change everything in a flash, like a wizard. Wizards don’t exist, miracles don’t exist. The demiurges are making fun of you, …” - Oriana Fallaci, A Man, p.309. - The only worthwhile external revolution, apart from the internal one of clarifying and enlightening your mind, is the one you choose for yourself or are free to make for yourself. – JZ, 7.5.08. - But that requires individual secessionism, individual sovereignty and the voluntarism, experimentalism and freedom of action, tolerance and peaceful coexistence of diverse societies of volunteers, under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy, which most "radical" "revolutionaries" have not yet taken into consideration. - JZ, 23.2.11. - DIS., TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, ENLIGHTENMENT, SELF-OWNERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, THE NEW KIND OF ENLIGHTENMENT & REVOLUTION AS WELL AS POLITICAL SCIENCE THAT IS NEEDED, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSION, INDIVIDUAL VS. COMPULSORY & TERRITORIAL SOCIAL CONTRACTS.

REVOLUTION: This “revolution” is real, and it has enormous permanent power. Millions and millions of people are involved in it, and more are enlisting every day. And it is a revolution of an entirely different sort. It aims not for the substitution of one authority for another, but for the final transformation of authority. It is moving on many different fronts. Its weapons are self-discovery and self-expression. (*) I don’t believe it will ever be turned back.” – Richard C. Cornuelle, De-Managing America, p.140 (*). - Not only these but, e.g. the business-like purchase of enterprises by their employees – JZ, 7.5.08. - Alas, he did not consider the exterritorial self-management of whole political, economic and social systems by communities and societies of volunteers, just like most capitalist advocates of "free enterprise" and "consumer sovereignty", freedom of contract, association and experimentation, freedom of choice, in a free market, do not extend their ideas into the sphere of providing also, in free enterprise fashion, whole political, economic and social systems, and free consumer sovereignty in the choice among them, for both, individual volunteers and secessionists, and whole like-minded groups of them, establishing and maintaining them through and for their volunteers. - But I do admit that the limited revolution in free enterprises, that he is concerned with, is also an important one. - But the concept of "De-management" should be extended to "de-managing" present centralized or somewhat decentralized States, including local territorial governments, as far as their territorialism goes, i.e. dissolving them into exterritorialy autonomous bodies for all kinds of like-minded volunteers. - Each party, faction and movement could become self-managing under panarchism, with its voluntarism, personal law and exterritorial autonomy options. – Who will, finally, express this idea optimally? - JZ, 23.2.11, 24.7.12. – SELF-MANAGEMENT, COOPERATIVES, PARTNERSHIP, EMPLOYEE SHAREHOLDING, PURCHASE OF ENTERPRISES - EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

REVOLUTION: This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they shall (can – in another version) exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.” – Abraham Lincoln. – Inaugural address, March 4, 1861. - Obviously, the slaves did not have that constitutional right. Nor did women and children and Red Indians enjoy all their rights, or the tax slaves and victims of protectionism. Alas, he, too, mixed up “the people” with the enormously diverse population, and a continent with private property and considered only an all-embracing territorial revolution. E.g. the industrial revolution and the computer revolution were of a quite different kind. - Each revolution should be confined to its volunteers. – Its burdens and its benefits should be subject to voluntary individual adoption. Free enterprise competition and consumer sovereignty and free choice should apply here as well. – Impossible? Under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws it could be done and partly, historically, it has as already been done, sometimes, in some countries. All these precedents are not yet systematically presented together. - JZ, 7.5.08, 23.2.11. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM

REVOLUTION: This is not revolution. It’s just the same old shit in a new wrapper.” – John Gordon, THE MATCH, Sept. 75. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP, NAMES & UNIFORMS.

REVOLUTION: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” - President John F. Kennedy, address to the diplomatic corps of the Latin American republics on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, March 13, 1962. - Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F Kennedy, 1962, p.223. - That applies to all who suppress individual secessions and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities. - Democracies and republics do also suppress all too many peaceful revolutions, permitting only those favored by the rulers or by the majority of voters. - JZ, 11.2.02. - As a territorialist he was one of them. - How wrongful his approach was is simply indicated by the fact that under him the nuclear arsenal of the US was doubled, from an already pre-existing over-kill potential. - JZ, 13.10.02. – The best way to achieve peaceful revolutions and avoid violent ones consists in allowing individual and group secessions under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy for all communities of volunteers. – JZ, 23.1.08. – He, too, considered only the all too limited and disaster-prone territorial options. - JZ, 22.8. 02. - If one wants the best kind of allies for a democracy against all despotic, tyrannical or even totalitarian regimes, then one could raise them by fully recognizing all kinds of governments and societies in exile, as alternatives to all repressive territorial regimes, all only for their present and future volunteers and should declare their aims to be also one's own rightful peace and war aims, should one be forced into a defensive war with such a regime. - Then it might even happen that the extremely wrongful regimes will be bloodlessly overthrown, perhaps by a military uprising. - Then existing and already somewhat liberated but still territorial authoritarian regime, usually considered to be rightful “democracies

 or “republics”, might follow the practical examples set by the diverse governments and societies in exile, which they had recognized as their allies, and might turn themselves also into diverse communities, societies and governance systems of and for volunteers only. This would be even more effective than merely recognized this freedom for deserters and refugees from foreign regimes in their various governments and societies in exile and for their future voluntary members, but also for all their own citizens and presently merely territorial subjects. - Otherwise, like our various opponents, like e.g. the various peoples in Iraq and Afghanistan, they might still fear that territorial majoritarian "democracy" and its pretended “unity” and “strength” might be coercively imposed upon them, as it is in the Western "free" democracies. - JZ, 23.2.11, 24.7.12. - Regarding the nuclear war threat see: - REFORM, CHANCE, PEACEFUL CHANGES, FREEDOM OF ACTION, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VIOLENCE, DICTATORSHIPS, HUMAN RIGHTS, OPTIONS, CHOICES, RIGHTS, VIOLENCE, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, DEFENCE AGAINST TOTALITARIANISM

REVOLUTION: Though a revolution may call itself national it always works the victory of a single party.” – André Gide, Journals, 17.10.1941. – No wonder, when all the revolutionaries believe in violence and territorialism. – JZ, 17.5.08. – PARTY RULE & ITS TERRITORIAL INTOLERANCE

REVOLUTION: To each his own revolution or reform! – JZ 5.12.92. – No interfering with any revolution or reform of other volunteers and their societies or communities. Under voluntary membership, personal law and full exterritorial autonomy that is not only quite rightful but also quite rational and profitable for all people, in balance. Only some would lose wrongful territorial powers, privileges and monopolies. Or they would lose, by their voluntary continuance of wrongful and anti-economic practices among themselves, many of their own volunteers, who would then have to foot all their bills and bear all their risks themselves. We could than all come to benefit much and soon, indirectly, from the successful experiments that would then take place, which could be easily copied. Probably these profits, directly or indirectly gained, would be much larger than the losses of the limited number of volunteers of the first exterritorially autonomous experiments, which failed due to their inherent flaws. We might then consider these losses as mere research and development costs. These costs and risks would then, anyhow, be born only by those who had favored these experiments and choose to participate in them. – JZ, 12.5.08, 23.2.11, 24.7.12. - PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PRIVILEGES, MONOPOLIES, FAILURES & SUCCESSES

REVOLUTION: To my utter despair I have discovered, and discover everyday anew, that there is in the masses no revolutionary idea or hope or passion.” - Mikhail A. Bakunin, (written in 1876), Gesammelte Werke, II, S.272. - That is a fact which makes me hopeful. Revolutionary changes should only be introduced by individuals and volunteers, at their expense and risk, in an experimental way, just like they are in technology, science, business and the arts and in private lifestyles. To attempt to radically and violently change the lives of all people in a territory, against the will of all conservatives and all kinds of dissenters, often the majority, amounts to one of the most wrongful aggressions, invasions and usurpations. - JZ, 13.10.02, 23.2.11. - Most people would rather be free to mind their own business in their own way than to themselves and violently meddle with the business of others. We do not all rob, assault and murder each other all the time. - JZ, 27.11.02. - A general and territorial revolution is not a rightful and rational purpose in it self, as it seems to be for some "revolutionaries". - JZ, 28.11.02, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: Today’s rebel is tomorrow’s tyrant.” – Will & Ariel Durant. - Territorialism alone would already assure that – at least for the periods of elective despotism. – JZ, 9.7.92, 6.1.93.

REVOLUTION: visible self-defence against the violence of the government.” – Jerome Tuccille, Radical Libertarianism, p.118. - As if most revolutionaries so far had not also been territorially intolerant. E.g. the American revolutionaries against the remaining monarchists. - JZ, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: We are all, each one of us, both oppressor and oppressed in whatever combination of categories we find ourselves – man, woman, white, black, adult, kid, rich, poor, straight, gay, beautiful, ugly, etc. etc. etc. And that’s why we need to bring politics back into the substance and texture of our daily lives with a comprehensive world view in which we would recognize domination in all its subtle forms, as well as its categorical manifestations. We’ve had 200 years of “revolutions” and yet we aren’t free.” – A “Political” Statement in RED & BLACK, 4/73, probably by Jack Grancharoff, its editor and publisher. - Yes, as long as we are all committed to territorialism. But no one forces us not to consider the exterritorial and voluntaristic alternative to territorialism and its compulsion, coercion and monopoly and then and finally, to introduce it, its voluntarism, competition and exterritorial autonomy aspects to the benefit of almost everybody, except the former victimizers. – JZ, 7.5.08, 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: We are not subjects of a State founded upon law, but members of a society formed upon revolution. Revolution is our obligation: our hope of evolution.” – Ursula Le Guin, The Dispossessed, p.296. – Some seem to think that revolution, for the sake of revolution does make as much sense as art for the sake of art, disregarding the territorial coercion and monopolism in most of the former and the voluntarism in the latter. (Apart from State subsidized art and art teaching.) - JZ, 23.2.11. – Probably 99% of all revolutions were territorial, monopolistic, coercive, murderous and destructive and as such all too flawed rather than exclusively liberating. -  A systematic survey of all of them, all their wrongs and flaws and all their good points, may be still amiss. At least I haven’t found it as yet. - J.Z., 24.7.12. - LAW, STATE, SUBJECTS, CITIZEN, DUTY, SOCIETY

REVOLUTION: We cannot, in literature any more than in the rest of life, live in a perpetual state of revolution.” – T. S. Eliot: Milton, 1947. – Quoted by Seldes. - True for territorial revolutions. Untrue for e.g. scientific, technological, philosophical, artistic and literary or computer revolutions, which are going on all the time, all around us, as one man or small group revolutions, without interrupting the ordinary processes of life. Political, economic and social revolutions should, likewise, become confined to volunteers, their personal laws and their exterritorially autonomous alternative institutions and personal law, to assure progress in these spheres to be as frictionless and tolerable for others as possible and desirable. – JZ, 8.5.08, 24.7.12. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: we don’t want to overthrow the nation; we simply want to restore the Bill of Rights.” – Poul Anderson, Sam Hall, p.87. – Was any Bill of Rights, so far declared and fought-for, ever complete and correct enough? – JZ, 7.5.08. – HUMAN RIGHTS, PROGRAM, TERRITORIALISM, Q.

REVOLUTION: We’ve had 200 years of “revolutions” and yet we aren’t free. We have always allowed others to control our struggles and then we find, invariable, that these others control our lives.” – RED & BLACK, No. 5, A “Political” Statement. – Not wonder, the regimes rebelled against were territorial and the rebels were all territorialists, too. And so far they have not yet recognized and eliminated this basic wrong and mistake from their thinking and their actions. – JZ, 7.5.08. – The left-anarchist “RED & BLACK” of Jack Grancharoff does not strive, either, for e.g. financial and monetary emancipation. – JZ, 20.10.08. – TERRITORIALISM, ANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: What for?” asks a teenage girl in New Jersey. “Who wants a messy revolution that just sets up another government that’s self-serving to those who brought it about?” – Richard C. Cornuelle, De-Managing America, p.23. – TERRITORIALISM, Q.

REVOLUTION: When the people are encouraged to turn to government to settle all of their problems for them, the basis for all revolutions is thereby established. For then the people expect the government to provide them with all of the material things they want. And when these things are not forthcoming, they resort to violence to get them. And why not – since the government itself has told them that these responsibilities belong to government rather than to them. - - I am convinced that a revolution would not be possible if the only relationship between government and the people was to guarantee them their liberty and security.” – Frederic Bastiat, addressing the National Assembly of France, December 12, 1848. – That does wrongly assume that territorial institutions can provide such a “limited” guaranty for all the diverse groups in any large population, all with different ideals and ideas on rights, liberties, protection, justice, economics, social and political relations. – JZ, 8.5.08. – When and as long as the very diverse peoples in almost any territory want different degrees and kinds of liberties and rights for their own affairs, then a central territorial government can hardly provide these for all of them. None of the territorial governments has so far even bothered to declare all genuine individual rights and liberties. Their declarations are all too flawed and incomplete. Only communities and societies of volunteers can rightfully decide which rights and liberties they wish to realize among their members and to what extent. No majority of other people can territorially and rightfully make that decision for them. In other words, all the diverse groups and their individuals need individual secessionism and re-association choices and diverse groups of like-minded individuals to choose from, as well as the freedom to establish other and more such groups, societies or communities, whether libertarian or statist ones. All of them without a territorial monopoly claim but with full exterritorial autonomy – for their volunteers. – JZ, n.d. & 24.7.12. - WELFARE STATES, CLAIMS INSTEAD OF RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM.

REVOLUTION: When the people contend for their liberty they seldom get anything by their victory but new masters.” – George Savile, Lord Halifax, 1633-1695. – Yes, if they contend only territorially, for monopolies, instead of exterritorial and voluntary institutions and personal laws. - JZ, 23.2.11. - LIBERTY, TERRITORIALISM – Andrews Quotes.

REVOLUTION: When the revolution comes, the revolutionaries win, or the government wins; the people always lose." - - Would that also be the case for genuinely libertarian or anarchist revolutions, with the panarchist model: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice? Weren't some gains made by the American Revolution and the French Revolution and the Glorious Revolution in England of 1688? - JZ, 23.8.02. - By now libertarians should be aware that there is or can be also such a thing as a genuinely liberating libertarian revolution and that it could and should be conducted without much bloodshed and destruction, if any. - Just ponder, e.g., how popular and effective a tax strike could become, if combined with refusals to accept government paper money and a monetary and financial freedom program to end and prevent unemployment, depressions, deflations and inflations and the expropriation of all the assets of the bureaucracy in favor of all of its victims. - JZ, 29.10.02. - GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE, DIS., PEOPLE

REVOLUTION: When these revolts succeed, they are called revolutions. But they are revolutions only in the sense that a wheel’s turning is a revolution. An Old World revolution is only a movement around a motionless centre; it never breaks out of the circle. Firm in the center is belief in Authority. No more than the Communist or the National Socialist (Nazi) today, has any Old World revolution ever questioned that belief; they all take it for granted that some Authority controls individuals.” – Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.16. - TERRITORIALISM, AUTHORITY

REVOLUTION: while a state might be destroyed by revolution, mere violence did nothing to destroy belief in the state.” – LIBERTY, Summer 74. - No revolution has so far sufficiently destroyed the belief in statist territorialism or even seriously attempted to do so. - JZ, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: Win a revolution and a bunch of lawyers pop out of the woodwork.” – Source? - True for territorial revolutions and power-hungry lawyers or politicians. – JZ, 11.8.07. – Panarchism means a lot of peacefully coexisting and continuing voluntary societies and communities, all with different aims and means, all undertaken at the expense and risk of their own volunteers only. – It would also need some lawyers, but more versatile or specialist ones, to deal with a large variety of personal law systems. - I am not game to predict with some certainty that then we would either need some more or somewhat less lawyers and judges, but certainly somewhat different ones, those, which can cope with different personal law systems than merely with territorially imposed uniform ones. - JZ, 3.8.02, 11.9.07, 24.7.12. - POLITICIANS, LAWYERS, REPRESENTATIVES, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW

REVOLUTION: With penetrating analysis that has scarcely been equaled by contemporary social theorists Goodman went right to the heart of anarchist thought when he pointed out that the world “revolution” in anarchist theory “means the process by which the grip of authority is loosed, so that the functions of life can go on freely, without direction or hindrance.” – Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.573 on Paul Goodman – What would loosen the grip of authority more than confining it to personal laws for volunteers or exterritorial autonomy societies and communities? – That is the point of order to be raised against all existing governments and revolutionary and reform movements. - JZ, 7.5.08. – EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM & PERSONAL LAWS VS. TERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY & ALSO FREEDOM OF ACTION & EXPERIMENTATION IN EVERY SPHERE.

REVOLUTION: Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.” – V. I. Lenin, What Is To Be Done? 1902. – There were many revolutions already – but was even one of them based upon a sound and comprehensive theory? Lenin certainly did not have such a theory. – Or only one suitable for totalitarian communists. - JZ, 8.5.08, 23.2.11.

REVOLUTION: You must be a revolutionary and yourself take control of your life and its surroundings.” – Communist Election Slogan 10/72. – Libertarians could subscribe to this – if the intention and practice were to leave the lives and property of others alone, letting them enact their own revolutions, at their own risk and expense. – JZ, 3/77. – Only the members of various communist utopias did that for a while and all of them, except those, which were also religiously motivated, failed rather soon, as a result of their inbuilt economic defects and limited choices for individuals. – J.Z., 24.7.12.

REVOLUTION: Your kind of territorial revolution is not necessarily my kind of revolution. I might even find it so revolting that I would resist it as much as I can. Thus let us agree, finally, on the last kind and only rightful revolution, the one-man revolution, that is only voluntarily combined with those of others and always applied only to voluntary members – and to genuine and provable aggressors and oppressors. – JZ, 30.1.95. – It has at least the potential to be the most non-violent revolution of all and it would achieve for all its revolutionaries only the different aims they had for their revolution, namely the government, society or community of their kind, all peacefully coexisting because none of them has or claims any territorial monopoly, just like churches or sects or insurance companies. – JZ, 9.5.08. - PANARCHISM

REVOLUTION: Your political insights were a mere dawning. You foolishly blamed the creator, although he has given you reason and courage to govern yourself. When oppression thundered down upon your heads then you could rightly blame only your own weakness. Freedom and happiness are for those, who know how to acquire them. (*) All in the world is revolution ...“ Louis-Sebastian Mercier, L’an2440, 1772, in German, 1772: Das Jahr 2440, in Der Traum vom besten Staat, 19722, 1975, p.244 ff, Dokumente, dtv. Wissenschaftliche Reihe, Herausgeber Helmut Swoboda, born 1924. - Mercier envisioned a primitive system of voluntary taxation. The motto of his book is: “The presence is pregnant with the future.” - (*) And who care to acquire that knowledge. But who cares, even today, to acquire full knowledge of all individual rights and liberties and to spread that knowledge? – JZ, 12.9.07. - VS. OPPRESSION, SELF-EMPOWERMENT, LIBERATION, STRENGTH AGAINST WEAKNESS & SUBMISSIVENESS

REVOLUTIONARY DESPOTISM: The government of the Revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny." - Maximilian Robespierre, French National Convention, Feb. 5, 1794. - Remember how he applied it! Despotism in the name of liberty is still despotism rather than defence of liberty. No aggressive act is a defensive act. Robespierre defended, in a despotic way, only his kind of collective freedom, as interpreted by himself. He did so against all real or imagined dissenters or "conspirators". He allowed no one to secede from his political circus. And he enforced his political bias and power with terror. Any rightful revolution begins with and continues by individuals seceding and associating freely. - JZ, 6.4.89.

REVOLUTIONS & PANARCHISM: Revolutions only from the top of the power pyramids are as useless as those only from the bottom. The best, most peaceful and radically liberating revolution is that which sets all innovators, and also all conservatives and reactionaries, quite free to establish for and among themselves all the alternative institutions which they wish for and are willing to pay and work for, leaving all others free to establish their own or to join individually self-chosen ones among the already established and exterritorially autonomous societies, communities and governance systems. - JZ 18.4.92, 4.1.93, 9.9.04. – UTOPISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, CONTRACTARIANISM, ASSOCIATIONISM, META-UTOPIA, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS ETC.

REVOLUTIONS, CONSPIRACIES: Conspirators terrorists and revolutionaries do also form panarchies - temporary ones. Alas, all of them are perverted by their common aim: territorial supremacy and their non-recognition, thereupon, by the present territorial governments. - JZ 21.7.87, 10.8.87. - If they were merely exterritorialists and quite tolerant as such, then many territorial governments, not sitting very firmly in the saddle, might be happy to let most of their opponents go - to do their own things among themselves. - JZ, 12.12.03.

REVOLUTIONS, RIGHTFUL: And since I could not regard it as justified for Jones to attempt the violent overthrow of my government merely because (for a variety of possible reasons) he detested it, I can claim no such right for myself." – Jeffrey G. Murphy, Kant: The Philosophy of Right, p.137. - But each has the right to make a part or complete revolution for himself and for like-minded people. - JZ, 9.1.93. – KANT, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

REVOLUTIONS: Panarchies represent one-man revolutions, i.e. rightful and peaceful revolutions, and they have the power to undermine all others and all territorial establishments. - JZ, 20.6.92, 6.1.93.

REVOLUTIONS: revolutions grow out of the disintegration of consent, not out of violence. The reason violence is so often associated with revolution is that few have tested the power of government or the consent of the governed - except those who in their anger and frustration have been prepared to use violence." - John M. Swomley, Jr. - I would rather say that revolutions grow out of the coercive denial of consensual relationships. - JZ, n.d. - Territorialism or uniform territorial constitutional institutions, laws, jurisdictions and administrations deny consensual relationships to all too many. - JZ, 9.9.04.

REVOLUTIONS: The majoritarian and collectivist revolutions must be partly replaced and otherwise supplemented by those of individuals and minorities, exterritorially and autonomously doing their own things. - JZ 13.2.92, 13.1.93. - That would also leave the majority in all countries free to do their things to and for themselves, without any but merely verbal opposition from dissenting minorities. If majorities really cared about their own interests, they would let all the "crackpots" and "fools" go into internal self-isolation or internal exile - as far as their interests and affairs were concerned. All would be free to engage in their own favorite "dances", "shows" and "games" in their own circles. - JZ, 11.12.03.


REY, FRANCIS: La protection diplomatique et consulaire dans les echelles du Levant et de Barbarie, Paris, L. Larosse, 1899, 552pp. (Ann Arbor, Univ. of Michigan)

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. - Sorry, but I mentioned to omit the title! - JZ


RICH: The nicest part of being rich is having earned it. - JZ, 7.10.76. – Provided one is not a monopolist, has not merely inherited riches or won them in a lottery etc. – The percentage of people who have gone from poverty to wealth by their own efforts is rising in the relatively free countries and would be much larger still - if full economic freedom were put within reach of all, e.g. through panarchies for laissez-faire, laissez passer advocates. – Through proper old age insurance arrangements practically everybody could become rich, at least in his old age. – Governments have so far effectively prevented that through numerous wrongful interventions. – Those envious towards the few rich of today should focus e.g. on that fact. - JZ, 8.5.08.

RICH: The poor try to legally exploit the better off and the rich, e.g. through progressive taxation, company tax, inheritance taxes, etc., unaware that they are the greatest beneficiaries of productively invested capital, left in the hands of its owners and that most of the tax revenue, indirectly or directly, comes actually from the poor or not quite well-off people, because they form the great majority. – Until all people are finally freed to sort themselves out into their own kinds of voluntary societies and communities, i.e., until territorialism is ended, they will always tend to clash with each other under all kinds of delusions and prejudices. Among volunteers only, quite free to do their own things for or to themselves, such wrongful, ignorant and irrational behavior will become more and more rare. – 24.8.98, 9.5.08. - POVERTY, TAXES, PROGRESSIVE TAXATION

RICH: the rich aren’t relieving middle-income (and certainly not lower-income) families of increasing tax burdens.” – Angus Black, A New Radical’s Guide … p.103. – And why should they? High direct and indirect taxes were made politically possible only through the popular myth that most of the taxes would be paid by the rich. – Let all dissenters secede. Then, among themselves and among the remaining State subjects, voluntary taxation would come to prevail – and competition would see to it, in most instances, that it would be require much less than the present territorial tax and spending rates. – JZ, 8.5.08. 23.2.11. – VOLUNTARY TAXATION, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, PREJUDICES, TAXATION

RICHARD, MAX: Max Richard, Principes et Méthodes du Fédéralisme - (1956) [Français] - Gian Piero de Bellis put this in his Polyarchy - Polyarchie - Poliarchia - Poliarquia collection.

RIEBEN, RICHARD, What Is This Thing Called Law? 2005, at, 17 KBs. - Note: The law, according to Richard Rieben, is that which grants "mutual respect for divergence in all matters at the level of the individual." This universal "law of reciprocal respect" is the basis for a specific view of panarchy interested more in autonomous human beings (self-rule) than in societies managed by a voluntary appointed (non territorial) government. - This is a highly provocative, very interesting essay that advocates the option by individuals of not adhering to any government (that is also proper to panarchy even if the author seems to overlook it) and being nevertheless secure within the framework of the only law that deserves that name: the universal law of mutual respect and tolerance. - GPdB. - A defence mainly of individual sovereignty and voluntarism, not a discussion or explanation of all aspects of panarchism and polyarchism. - JZ, 18.9.11. - Richard Rieben, What Is This Thing Called Law?

RIGHT & LEFT: Right and Left “solutions” and “center compromises” and “third ways”, all intolerant and intolerably territorial ones, can only lead us down and out, not up and forward into real progress. – JZ, 25.1.97. - Nevertheless, they should be tolerated – but only for their own volunteers and exterritorially. They would not matter much as long as all other innovators become free to do their own things among themselves, exterritorially, panarchistically, voluntarily. – JZ, 10.5.08, 24.2.11. – PANARCHISM. TO EACH HIS OWN, EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM

RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT: The “right of private judgment”, widely enough interpreted, includes not only the right to decide upon one’s own private affairs and competing juridical systems but also the experimental freedom and freedom of association expressed in exterritorially autonomous protective associations and communities of volunteers. It demands individual sovereignty and individual secessionism, which are presently severely restricted in all spheres preempted by territorial governments. – JZ, 17.1.96, 9.1.99.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT: the right of private judgment, in matters of conscience.” – Samuel Adams, 1722-1803, oration at Philadelphia, August 1776. – Political, economic and social affairs can also be a matter of conscience. – JZ, 9.1.99.

RIGHT TO IGNORE THE STATE, THE: by Herbert Spencer, "Social Statics", 1850, page 83, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506. - It has been put online, on several sites, probably also on - JZ

RIGHT TO LIFE: Why would some people rather grant the right to life to some animals and plants than to a human fetus? – JZ, 31.7.95. – Full employment, freedom to adopt children and the medical possibility to transplant fetuses to willing and able mothers, and more knowledge about their very nature, would abolish the motive for many to most abortions. In a fully free economy, like in former times, children would also not be considered as a burden but rather as an asset. Voluntary, free and part-time child labor would not be a wrong but an educational opportunity for them. - JZ, 10.5.08. - In our time the abortionists and the anti-abortionists should sort themselves out into their own kind of panarchies. Then, I believe, the membership of the anti-abortionist panarchies, that also practise freedom, their practices would tend to spread. - JZ, 24.2.11. – Sufficient knowledge of and practice of preventative measures and methods would also prevent most unwanted pregnancies, thus avoiding to motive to end them by abortions. – JZ, 24.7.12. - Q., ABORTION, ADOPTION

RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES, TO EXPERIMENT: You do have the right to make mistakes and to experiment at your own risk and expense in every sphere, even in those of political, economic and social systems. But only exterritorially and among volunteers. Then the best ones will tend to win most adherents – and this rather soon, while the worst ones will tend to perish as fast as possible or become reduced to harmless proportions. Under territorialism and its intolerance, compulsion, exploitation, repression, centralism and stupidities, even some of the worst systems do still persist for all too long and even the best ones have still many dissatisfied minorities and very few satisfied taxpayers. - JZ, 04-11, 24.7.12. - FREEDOM & SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, RISK-TAKING WITH THE OWN LIFE, HEALTH, INCOMES & PROPERTY ONLY.

RIGHT TO RESIST & REVOLT & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM: The right to resist and revolt are largely realizable and limited, in theory and in practice by individual secessionism. When individuals are free to secede then they do not have the right to resist or revolt. - If they aim at individual secessionism and associationism then their resistance against totalitarian regimes will be more often and sooner successful. - JZ, n.d. & 24.7.12.

RIGHT: A group, as such, has no legitimate claim to rights. "A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations." - Ayn Rand, quoted in O'Neill's Ayn Rand's Philosophy, p.46. - However, the degree of the practice of rights and liberties can be rightly restricted or expanded by individual choices in all communities of volunteers that are, as such, free to do so. - JZ, 24.2.11.

RIGHT: A man's right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to win property, to have the state as a servant, not as master.” - Margaret Thatcher, READER'S DIGEST, 6/77. - Should one not be free to dismiss this "servant" and to refuse to pay it? - Or to give notice to this master? - JZ, 24.2.11. – Q., STATISM, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, SECESSIONISM

RIGHT: A mass, as Mr. Spencer insists, can only possess the qualities that are possessed by its units. A mass of salt can only possess the qualities which are in the particles of salt. You deny the rights of the individual to regulate and direct himself. But you suddenly acknowledge and exaggerate these rights as soon as you have thrown the individual into that mass which you call the majority. Then you suddenly discover that men have not only rights to own themselves, but also to own their fellow-men.” - Auberon Herbert, Mack edition, p.138. - MAJORITIES, DEMOCRACY, SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, COERCIVE COLLECTIVISM, SELF-OWNERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

RIGHT: a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” – Samyutta Nikaya, v. 353. – Even if it is pleasing or delightful for oneself, that still does not mean that it would be for others. E.g., a book, some music, food, drink or kind of clothing or hair style that pleases us should not be forced upon others. Leave them to their own choices! That is the most just and rational "Golden Rule". - JZ, 24.2.11. - BUDDHISM, GOLDEN RULE, TOLERANCE, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, PANARCHISM, FIRST PRINCIPLES

RIGHT: All men should have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labors.” - Dean Smith, Conservatism, p.115. – How many territorialist conservatives are consistent in this respect and favor only voluntary taxation or contribution schemes? – JZ, 1.4.09. - Alas, the conservatives did not conserve our exterritorialist traditions in their ideas and practices. They are, as a rule, territorial statists, too. - JZ, 24.2.11.

RIGHT: Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” - Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848 speech in Congress. – Later, theSoutherners, wanted to take him at his word. Alas, they did not recognize any individual rights for their slaves and they wanted to monopolize the Southern territories. – However, they, as opposed to the Northern U.S.A. States, favored Free Trade in external trading rather than Protectionism. - JZ, 30.3.09. - Anyhow, no territorial domination is a good enough substitute for exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. - JZ, 24.2.11. - RIGHT TO REBEL, REVOLT, ENGAGE IN REVOLUTIONS, STILL ON THE TERRITORIALIST PREMISE, SECESSIONISM

RIGHT: Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development.” - Oscar Wilde, Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young. - The totalitarians of the right and the left do try to teach this to their young people, too. Wilde failed here to make the simple but decisive distinction between conduct in private, between consenting adults and conduct "in public", i.e. towards dissenting adults and children. - Is there any wrong or crime for which some intellectuals do not find an excuse and some nicely turned phrase? This is one of the reasons for attempting to compile "Slogans for Liberty" and an encyclopedia of the best refutations, also for attempts to provide the best declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties that we could, currently, provide. - Within the private or public - but still internal conduct among members of voluntary communities - everything is constitutionally, legally, juridically or customarily right or wrong what the voluntary members of these communities consider to be so, for their voluntary members, at their own risk and expense. - If, for themselves, they do wish to institutionalize e.g. censorship and abolish the right to inheritance, then to them such rulings do apply, as long as they stay members of such a community. - They may freely apply, among themselves, all kinds of other idiocies or irrational rules. For them they would be rightful and even necessary lessons, on their road to enlightenment. But they would certainly not be universal moral rules, rights or just decisions for all others - JZ, 7.1.1986, 24.11.05, 24.2.11, 29.1.12. – DIS., PANARCHISM, Q., VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

RIGHT: By his nature a human has the absolute right to do anything he wants with his person and property.” - ISFSC leaflet "The Road to Freedom." - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

RIGHT: By simply protecting every man in his rights, a government necessarily keeps open to every one the widest possible field that he honestly can have, for such industry as he may choose to follow. It also insures him the widest possible field for obtaining such capital as he needs for his industry, and the widest possible markets for the products of his labor. With the possession of these rights, he must be content.” – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, Works I, 15. - That is still a form of libertarian territorial statism! - J. Z., 26.6.84. - How can the myth that a territorial State can and does provide this service persist for so long? One of the explanations is that as a territorial State it has excluded all rightful, rational and efficient competition with it. - JZ, 24.2.11.

RIGHT: every man has a right to give an opinion (*) but no man has a right that his opinion should govern the rest.” - Thomas Paine, First Principles of Government, 1795. - (*) And also to practise it, among like-minded people, at their own expense and risk. - JZ, 24.2.11. – OPINIONS, ARGUMENTS, BELIEFS, CONVICTIONS, IDEAS, PRINCIPLES, TERRITORIALISM

RIGHT: everyone has the right to go to hell in his own way.” – Quoted with disapproval by Walter H. Heller, WORLD RESEARCH INK, 11/76. – RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES, AT THE OWN RISK & EXPENSE, ERRORS, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM

RIGHT: First and foremost, rights are a claim of exclusive control. That which you do, or possess by right, I cannot properly interfere with. What, then, do you or I own exclusive title to? - First we own our own lives. If man has any rights at all, he must first and foremost have a 'right to life', for without life no thought, no choice and no action is possible. If I cannot control my own life, then there is clearly nothing else, which I can control. Now, by my "life" I mean, essentially, my own mind, body and actions - the extensions of myself in time and space. Thus, as a consequence of my right to life, I also have a 'right to liberty', that is, to freedom of action (so long as my actions do not violate the same right (*) of others). Lastly, as a consequence of my rights to life and liberty, I have a right to acquire property: entities external to myself. Since man is a material being, he must necessarily possess and consume other material entities in order to live. Thus man necessarily has a 'right to property' - meaning the right to use, control and dispose of external property.” - Duncan Yuille, in leaflet "Human Rights". - (*) or another right! - Even non-action is a right in many cases. - JZ - FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, EVEN UNDER FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY.

RIGHT: For Rand, the contract which makes individual rights defensible is a contract with a government. Hence, for her, libertarianism is impossible without a government: it presupposes a government, albeit a minimal government. For Rothbard, individual rights are independent of any contract, they are natural, and the fundamental defense of them is by the individual himself. The marketing of defense services through defense agencies is not in any way a necessary ingredient in the implementation of rights. Rather, it is a special case of the principle of specialization of services on the market, and has nothing to do with the moral validity of individual rights, or with their implementability.” – Moshe Kroy, JLS, Sum, 77, p.208. - Underlining by me. - JZ - ROTHBARD & RAND

RIGHT: For some reason or the other, attacks on basic rights pay better than defending them. Crime pays! Especially official and legalized ones. And the outlawed ones, like drug deals. – JZ, 29.5.08. – But then fighting or escaping private or official crimes has not yet been opened up to free competition. We have “freedom” for territorial warfare States and police States but not yet freedom for exterritorially autonomous peaceful societies and communities of volunteers, doing their own things for or to themselves, and prepared to effectively defend their rights and liberties against the remaining private and official criminals, whenever this should still be required. Only they could be truly peace-promoting societies, quite the opposites to territorial warfare States. – It worked in the sphere of religion, wherever it was seriously tried. It would work even better in the political, economic and social spheres. - JZ, 9.5.08. – CRIMES, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM

RIGHT: Government laws, courts, police, votes, initiatives and referendum, freedom of expression and information, freedom to protest, freedom to petition, the democratic process, territorial rule, governmental bills of rights, good will and intentions, are all not yet sufficient to safeguard individual rights and liberties, not even in a country like the USA with a long freedom tradition. E.g., free migration, free trade, individual and group secessionism, monetary freedom and independent militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties are still outlawed there. – Not even the rights of the most innocent victims, the unborn children, are fully recognized there – or in the rest of the world. - JZ, n.d. & 18.5.08. - From their limitation or suppression through territorial States to their full realization, initially only among a few of the first panarchies, still a long march is required and if it is undertaken only by minorities, then all their efforts are often quite in vain, even for decades. – Individuals and dissenting minorities will get their best chances only under the voluntarism and experimental freedom opened up by secessionism, personal law and exterritorial autonomy. - JZ, 24.2.11, 24.7.12. - TERRITORIALISM

RIGHT: He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” - Thomas Paine, First Principles of Government, 1795. - Panarchism and polyarchism come, probably, closest to this ideal. - JZ, 24.2.11. – The rights and liberties involved come under many different terms and names. – JZ, 24.7.12. – PANARCHISM, TERMS, NAMES, DEFINITIONS

RIGHT: I am glad that most of us now have our political rights. And today I make this plea - that we use those political rights to vote for a return to the principle of making our laws and other governmental actions consistent with our moral rights.” - Admiral Ben Moreell, Log I, p.4/5. - That will be impossible as long as State membership remains compulsory and territorial. - J. Z., 26.6.84, 10.11.05.

RIGHT: I favor individual, not collective or national rights. - J. Z., 9/72. - All others are merely figments of the imagination. - However, volunteers should be free to try to realize them - among themselves. - JZ, 24.11.05. - After all, even religious liberty is a genuine right. - JZ, 24.2.11. And there is the right to experiment and make mistakes at the own expense and risk. – JZ, 24.7.12.

RIGHT: I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way.” - Robert Frost, 1935. - RIGHTS, SELF-DETERMINATION, LIBERTY, FREE CHOICE, RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES AT THE OWN EXPENSE & RISK

RIGHT: If you insist that individual rights are the summum bonum, then the whole structure of society (*) falls down. (**).” – B. F. Skinner. – (*) of the territorial State! – (**) Then an all-over free society, made up of numerous and diverse societies and communities, all only chosen by individuals for themselves, can finally begin. – JZ, 9.6.92. - DIS., PANARCHISM, STATE, SOCIETY, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM & PERSONAL LAWS VS. TERRITORIALISM

RIGHT: In short, every man's natural rights are first, the right to do, with himself and his property, everything that he pleases to do and that justice towards others does not forbid him to do; and, secondly, to be free from all compulsion by others, to do anything whatever, except (*)what  justice to others requires him to do.” - Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, Works I, 97. – (*) when it comes to whatever justice … - ? - JZ) INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SECESSIONISM & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

RIGHT: In still another way, the government denies men's natural right to life. And that is by denying their natural right to make any of those contracts with each other, for buying and selling, borrowing and lending, giving and receiving, property, which are necessary, if men are to exist in any considerable numbers on the earth …” - Spooner, Works I, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.34. – FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN EVERY SPHERE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-OWNERSHIP

RIGHT: Individual rights can only be protected from associations with compulsory membership - if their compulsory membership is abolished! - JZ, 5.6.82, 24.7.12. - COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM, PROTECTION

RIGHT: It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals.” - Spooner, Works I, 6. – However, voluntary victims should be free to grant their individually self-chosen governments as much power over their own lives as they do like or prefer to suffer under. - Every power-addicted mis-leader is likely to find at least some foolish, ignorant and prejudiced people to lord it over. Even the churches and sects are still successful in our days. Thus it is surprising that none of the political power addicts has ever called for this "right" and opportunity for himself or herself and the own followers. And be it only to save himself or herself election expenses and struggles. A sinecure among consenting victims! - JZ, 24.2.11. – When will the first politicians finally see this opportunity for themselves and go for it? Their usual  short-sightedness, limited knowledge, popular errors and prejudices, perhaps also their all too large power-addiction has so far blinded them in this respect as well. – J.Z., 24.7.12. - GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, VOTING, MANDATE, CONSTITUTIONALISM, PANARCHISM, POLITICIANS, INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN COLLECTIVE RIGHTS

RIGHT: It is the fundamental right of every human being ‘to be protected from his own weaknesses.’ – Senator R. Neehall of Trinidad, Trinidad Hansard, Senate Debates, 27.11.68, quoted on p.125 of David Nicholls, The Pluralist State. – As a senator he was probably a power addict. How could he be protected against this human weakness? By not permitting him to run for this territorial office? And would he have wanted this protection for himself? Are there any limits to the nonsense that some territorial politicians will spout? – JZ, 8.5.08. - PRESUMED, ASSERTED, IMAGINED & FICTITIOUS RIGHTS, WELFARE RIGHTS & CLAIMS, DIS., Q., POLITICIANS

RIGHT: Jefferson wrote, “It is ridiculous to suppose, that a man had less rights in himself than one of his neighbors, or, indeed, than all of them put together.” It is clear that Jefferson believed in the full equality of rights. Since all rights are equal no one’s rights superceded those of anyone else. And the individual’s rights are not superceded by the group as a whole. If the group had the authority to transgress on individual rights, “This would be slavery,” said Jefferson, “and not the liberty which the bill of rights had made inviolable, and for the preservation of which our government has been charged.” – Jim Lewis, Liberty Reclaimed, p.5. – The rights of the chicken – entrusted to the foxes! – JZ, 18.5.08. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, LEGISLATION

RIGHT: Judge Bowman … will examine the Supreme Court’s creation of a hierarchy of rights, its preference of some rights over others, and the legitimacy of that approach to the enforcement of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.” – I, too, hold that there is a hierarchy of rights. However, my own priorities are different from those of territorial States and governments of all kinds. Consequently, I’d like to be able to secede from all of them, their constitutions, laws, courts, and even their “bills of rights”, without thereby losing a single genuine individual human right, e.g. choice of residence or job, any monetary or financial freedom, the right to migrate and trade freely, even across national frontiers. – JZ, n.d., & 18.5.08, 24.2.11, 24.7.12.

RIGHT: man can achieve his optimal satisfaction when he is free to act as he considers best for him. Consequently when he joins with others to live in a society he ought to have the political ‘right’ or “entitlement’ to direct his life and to act freely. – However, other members of society can only enjoy the same freedom if the rights of every member are neither greater nor lesser than those of others. Consequently, rights must be equal.” – George Hardy, PROGRESS, 4/78. - However, all individuals of the whole population of a country do not have to live in the same society or State. Voluntary members of some societies or communities, all of them only exterritorially autonomous, may not believe in rights at all or in equal rights. Or they may insist on practising some rights while neglecting others. That should be up to them, as far as their own affairs are concerned. – JZ, 8.5.08. – EQUALITY, EQUAL RIGHTS, EQUAL FREEDOM, TERRITORIALISM VOLUNTARISM PANARCHISM

RIGHT: Man must have the right of choice, even to choose wrong, if he shall ever learn to choose right.” - Josiah C. Wedgwood - ISIL LIBERTY QUOTE LIBRARY 03. – Provided this is done only at his own risk and expense. - JZ, 24.2.11. - PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREE CHOICE, RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES, VOLUNTARISM, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, COMPETITION

RIGHT: No TERRITORIAL government has any rights! – JZ, 19.12.83, 24.2.11.

RIGHT: Only individual rights exist.” - Libertarian Handbook, 1973, on Spooner. – In exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers their members may subscribe, with their personal laws, to other “rights’ than individual rights and liberties - as long as they want to or can stand this. Those individuals having learnt their lesson would be free to secede from them. – JZ, 1.4.09.

RIGHT: People who are not right have no right to act as if they were – except at their own expense and risk only. They may “regulate” and destroy their own lives, liberties and property only. Likewise, those people, who are right,should also act only at their own expense and risk, in their own communities of volunteers, exterritorially autonomous and under their own personal laws and institutions. They are like foreign nations and ought to leave each other alone. Even the best kinds of social and collectivist intentions towards the affairs of others, who do not share these ideas, give no one a right to enforce the “good” actions upon any of the dissenters. (Naturally, criminals with victims among the own members and other aggressors excepted.) – JZ, 28.11.82, 8.5.08. – TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT ACTIONS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAWS, NON-INTERFERENCE, NON-INTERVENTIONISM.

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

RIGHT: Rights and liberties that are declared, “administered”, “controlled” and “regulated” or “interpreted” by territorial governments and their institutions, e.g. Supreme Courts, do no longer have much, if anything, in common with genuine individual rights and liberties. – JZ, 24.5.04. – Moreover, some of the most important rights and liberties are not mentioned or recognized by them at all. They do not even fully respect and uphold their own and all too limited declaration of rights and liberties and legislate or juridically rule many of them away or simply ignore them. – JZ, 31.10.07. - RIGHTS, NATURAL RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & GOVERNMENTS

RIGHT: Rights are a moral guaranty but not a guaranty of morality.” - LIVE & LET LIVE, 9/81. – Only an ideal militia of volunteers could come to uphold and guarantee, to a large extent, all genuine individual rights and liberties. Territorial governments are the worst possible organizations for this purpose. – JZ, 31.3.09. – The USA official militia has be statized and nationalized as well. The Swiss militia comes much closer to the ideal but we should aim at something still much better than it, also at a much better declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties. Both topics seem to me to be still all too much neglected on the Internet. Please, if I am wrong in this, do inform me! – J.Z., 24.7.12. - MILITIA, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY

RIGHT: RIGHTS OUTLAWED: Rights outlawed. (Recht in Acht“. – German proverb.) – Power and legislation outlaw rights and liberties. – JZ, 10.12.85, 28.1.12. – Let’s reverse this territorial, coercive, collectivist and centralistic monopoly situation by seeing to it that rightful defenders of genuine individual rights and liberties become established, suitably armed and organized, in accordance with these rights and liberties and outlaw and end the practice and institutions of all territorial powers and thereby all their abuses. – Rightful militias would not interfere if communities of volunteers restrict only their own rights and liberties. – The right to be foolish, ignorant and to make mistakes, at the own expense and risk, would also be upheld by such militias. - JZ, 2.4.09, 19.2.11. – Legalize all genuine individual rights and liberties! – JZ, 28.1.12. - TERRITORIALISM, MILITIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, BEGINNING WITH THEIR IDEAL FORMULATION & SUFFICIENT PUBLICATION OR DECLARATION

RIGHT: The contrast between power and might can ultimately be bridged only by an ideal militia, made up of volunteers only, enlightened about all individual rights and liberties and motivated, organized, trained, armed and sworn-in to uphold nothing but genuine individual rights and liberties, to the extent that they are desired for themselves by members of various communities of volunteers. Thus it would not interfere e.g. with a Catholic community in order to abolish its remaining censorship. – Governmental forces cannot be relied upon to know, appreciate and uphold these rights sufficiently. - JZ, 22.8.89, 10.5.08. - POWER, MIGHT, IDEAL MILITIA FORCES, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

RIGHT: The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression.” – Declaration of the Rights of Man by the French National Assembly, II, 1789. – Deceitful, coercive, monopolistic, collectivistic and powerful governments, especially all territorial governments above a certain size, are, in my opinion, unable to realize this ideal. I know of no territorial government that has ever fully protected these and the other individual rights and liberties, or even seriously tried to do so. – Even over 200 years later none of them has bothered to clearly formulate only genuine rights and liberties, all of them. Instead, all of them have inserted fictitious rights or mere claims against others into their incomplete and flawed bills of rights. – Realizing this, it is high time to consider alternative, complete and almost faultless and quite clear declarations of such rights and better institutions than territorial governments to protect them. - JZ, 5.7.86, 18.5.08. – If enough anarchist and libertarians were interested in this and collaborated sufficiently – would it take them long to produce such a draft between them? – J.Z., 24.7.12. – Q., DECLARATION OF ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

RIGHT: The free society is ruled by one cardinal principle: "Respect the rights of others, then do what you please." To the extent that this principle is observed by men, they and their societies are free. To the extent that it is violated, they and their societies are enslaved.” - Duncan Yuille: Human Rights, leaflet.

RIGHT: The great right of all, without which there is, in fact, no right, is the right of taking a part in the making of the laws by which we are governed.” – William Cobbett, Advice to Young Men, VI, 1829. - A much greater right is the right of individuals and minorities to secede from any territorial government, without making any territorial claim and to live under personal law - in their own kinds of exterritorially autonomous communities or societies, even of any statist or authoritarian type, also of any kind of anarchism or libertarianism, all only for their own volunteers. - JZ, 24.2.11. – PERSONAL LAWS RATHER THAN TERRITORIALLY IMPOSED LAWS, DIS., VOTING, DEMOCRACY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, LEGISLATION, NON-RIGHTS, MERE CLAIMS IN THE FORM OF HUMAN RIGHTS, FICTITIOUS RIGHTS, CIVIL RIGHTS, POLITICAL RIGHTS AS OPPOSED TO INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, PREJUDICES

RIGHT: The greatest right in the world is the right to be wrong. If the Government or majorities think an individual is right, no one will interfere with him; but when agitators talk against the things considered holy, or when radicals criticize, or satirize the political gods, or question the justice of our laws and institutions, or pacifists talk against war, how the old inquisition awakens, and ostracism, the excommunication of the church, the prison, the wheel, the torture-chamber, the mob, are called to suppress the free expression of thought.” - Harry Weinberger, "The First Casualties in War," letter to the editor, THE EVENING POST, New York City, April 10, 1917, p.11. - Even full freedom of expression and information is not enough. They must be accompanied by the freedom to act - at the own expense and risk. - JZ, 13.10.02. - RIGHT VS. WRONG, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

RIGHT: The grouping of men into a collective does not endow them with rights which they do not otherwise possess or an authority that they would not otherwise have.” – Duncan Yuille, in leaflet "Human Rights". - However, communities of volunteers, not claiming a territorial monopoly, do have the right to restrict their own individual rights and liberties as much as they like. They can also grant privileges or "civil liberties" to some of their members, always at their own expense and risk only. - JZ, 24.2.11.

RIGHT: The only ends for which governments are constituted, and obedience rendered to them, are the obtaining of justice and protection; and they who cannot provide for both give the people a right of taking such ways as best please themselves, in order to their own safety." - Algernon Sidney (1672) – When and where have territorial governments ever provided sufficient justice and protection? Isn’t it high time to list and publish such cases, if any exist, and to determine whether they constitute the rule or the exception for territorial governments? – JZ, 5.1.08. – To keep them at their best, rather than encouraging their worst traits, all governments and societies ought to be confined to their voluntary members and subjects and, through the abolition of their territorial monopoly, they should be forced to compete peacefully with each other, just like dozens of millions of free enterprises do already compete for voluntary employees, investors and customers, also e.g. vast numbers of sports- and numerous other kinds of clubs and societies for voluntary members. – JZ, 30.3.09, 24.7.12. - RIGHT OF REVOLUTION, PEOPLE VS. WRONGFUL GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, COMPETITION, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE UNDER PERSONAL LAWS & RULES, ASSOCIATIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, CONTRACTARIANISM

RIGHT: The only ground upon which exclusion of the right of voting is consistent with justice, would be to inflict it as a punishment for a certain time upon those who should propose to take away that right from others.” - Thomas Paine, First Principles of Government. - There was a time when even great minds like his imagined that it would be a great thing to have a political vote. - J. Z., 7.1.1986. - The political and territorial vote and the "right" to be a candidate and to become elected by a majority in a territory, has nothing to do with individual human rights, natural rights, the moral law or natural law. It is merely a constitutional arrangement that can be rightful only for communities of volunteers. Otherwise it is merely a substitute of ballots for bullets, i.e., a means for wrongful coercion. At most it is a "civil right" contracted for. - JZ, 24.11.05. – VOTING

RIGHT: The Right to Life, with the attendant respect of every other person's Right to Life, is simply the guaranty that one will be free to provide for one's own life - whether alone or with the voluntary co-operation of others (i.e. living in a society) - in whatever manner one sees fit, free from the coercion of others.” - Mark Tier, Murphey's Rights vs. Human Rights.

RIGHT: The right to work, properly defined, means not the charitable or legal provision of some unproductive jobs via donations or compulsory taxes, but, rather, the right to provide oneself with work, without depriving anybody of it, by undertaking all monetary, financial and organizational measures required for this purpose. - JZ, 31.12.92, free after Ulrich von Beckerath. – UNEMPLOYMENT & SELF-HELP, MONETARY FREEDOM, RIGHT TO WORK

RIGHT: The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” – John F. Kennedy. – Only the territorially organized threats to individual human rights or natural rights are really dangerous to all men – as several great wars have demonstrated. – JZ, 2.1.08. – This great misleader doubled the nuclear mass murder arsenal of the U.S.A. government! – JZ, 30.3.09, 24.7.12. - RIGHTS, THREATS TO THEM

RIGHT: The rights of the individual should be the primary object of all governments.” – Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814), American Playwright, Poet, Historian. - But they are, rather, the targets of territorial governments, as liberties to be restricted or even suppressed, as much as possible, under the pretence of protecting them. - Only in this way can they satisfy their addiction to power and "glory". - JZ, 15. 11. 06. - One might as well ask the Mafia to abolish all crime. - JZ, 24.2.11. - RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, DIS.

RIGHT: The task consists in so separating completely equal freedom of action spheres for all individuals so much from each other that neither majorities nor institutions nor any kind of leaders or rulers can restrict the freedom of action spheres of individuals or groups to the advantage of other individuals or groups, beyond the limitations of the equal freedom for all.” – K. H. Z., in ERLESENES, Heft 1, S. 67/68. – JZ, rough translation of the German original: “… und es eben darauf ankommt, den voellig gleichberechtigen Bewegunsspielraum aller Einzelnen so abzugrenzen, dass weder Mehrheiten noch Institutionen noch irgendwelche Fuehrer oder Herrscher den Freiheitsspielraum von Einzelnen oder Gruppen zugunsten anderer Einzelner oder Grupppen und ueber die Grenze der gleichen Freiheit aller hinaus einzuschraenken vermoegen.” – However, within their own sphere of freedom of action some groups of volunteers might not aim a maximum liberty for all their members but e.g., at some form of monarchism, aristocracy, direct democracy or whatever ism they have in mind as their utopian ideal, even if it means e.g., living like monks or nuns. The essential point remains only that all their „subjects“ remain volunteers, i.e., they remain free to secede from the community or society they had once voluntarily joined, when they are no longer satisfied with it. They should be free to do so either after a contracted-for withdrawal period or, in case of acute differences of opinion, that have already led to violence or may lead to it, immediately. – I agree with K. H. Z. on this only insofar that no outside majority, institution , leader or ruler may interfere with the arrangements within a community of volunteers. – All such communities will have a common interest that this kind of outside interference will not occur and will “gang up” on any individual or group which makes any such attempt. - JZ, 8.5.08. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, NOT: ALL KINDS OF FREEDOM & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR THE VOLUNTEERS OF EVERY COMMUNITY.

RIGHT: There is a need for free competition, first of all between individuals, later internationally. Freedom to invent, work, exchange, sell, and buy. Freedom to price one's products. And simply no intervention by the State outside of its special sphere. In other words: 'Laissez faire, laissez passer'.” – P. E. de Puydt, Panarchy, p.3. - I deny the rightful existence of any special sphere or monopoly for any territorial State. - And so did De Puydt in the main lesson of this essay. - JZ, 24.2.11.

RIGHT: those in government may very well have the POWER to take my money, my property, my freedom, or even my life; they have not RIGHT to do so. While those in government are (thus) physically stronger than I and can readily overpower me, this does not make their ABILITY to overreach a rightful one. I have a NATURAL right arising out of my nature as a human being and with which I was endowed at birth. This right is my natural ability to manage my own energy, my own property, my own affairs (*) without any violent boundary intrusion. While the government can grab my properties, it cannot take away my rights. It can steal anything else it can get its hands on physically, but it cannot handle my moral position. There I take the high ground. I was endowed with it by nature, and (territorial – JZ ) government, as unnatural and vicious an organization as could well be imagined, has no right or ABILITY to take my rights. They are inalienable.” - Robert LeFevre, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85, p.13. - (*) Once I have sufficiently grown up, matured and been enlightened or educated myself. – Not as a baby or infant etc. - JZ, 18.5.08. - NATURAL RIGHTS, NATURAL LAW, RATIONAL BEINGS

RIGHT: We have sacrificed all too many of our rights and liberties to the Moloch god of territorialism - without thereby gaining in security, wealth and satisfaction. On the contrary. Is it not high time not to trust territorial politicians and bureaucrats any longer and to achieve consumer sovereignty towards them and free enterprise competition in this sphere? When a business or enterprise do no longer satisfy us, we do no longer buy from them or work for or invest in them. Why not finally achieve the same individual choices between all political, economic and social system alternatives? – JZ, 19.12.93, 11.5.08. – Except any territorial ones.  They and their powers and institutions should be done away with altogether or confined to their remaining volunteers. – J.Z., 24.7.12. - SACRIFICES, SECURITY, LIBERTY, CHOICE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.

RIGHT: We hold that individuals have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, provided they do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others to live in whatever manner they choose.” - From Workers Party leaflet: The Alternative. - From this and similar general phrases to fully recognizing individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers seems to be, for all too many, still a too large step to be tackled, even in their thoughts. - JZ, 24.2.11, 24.7.12.

RIGHT: We make a terrible mistake when we think that what is good or right for us is necessarily good or right for the man next door.” - IPA FACTS, 12/68. – One territorial law for all or only personal laws, self-chosen, for all? – JZ, .4.09. – PERSONAL LAW, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, Q.

RIGHT: What, now, is the reason why not one of these courts has ever so far given its attention to the subject as to have discovered what the 'obligation of contracts' is? What that principle is, I repeat, which they have all sworn to sustain, and on which the real validity, or invalidity, of every contract on which they ever adjudicate, depends? Why is it that they have all gone on sanctioning and enforcing all the nakedly iniquitous laws, by which men's natural right to make their own contracts has been trampled under foot? - - Surely it is not because they do not know that all men have a natural right to make their own contracts; for they know that, as well as they know that all men have a natural right to live, to breathe, to move, to speak, to hear, to see, or to do anything whatever for the support of their lives, or the promotion of their happiness. - - Why, then, is it, that they strike down this right, without ceremony, and without compunction, whenever they are commanded to do so by the lawmakers? It is because, and solely because, they are so servile, slavish, degraded, and corrupt, as to act habitually on the principle, that justice and men's natural rights are matters of no importance, in comparison with the commands of the impudent and tyrannical lawmakers, on whom they are dependent for their offices and their salaries. It is because, and solely because, they, like the judges under all other irresponsible and tyrannical governments, are part and parcel of a conspiracy for robbing and enslaving the great body of the people, to gratify the luxury and pride of a few. It is because, and solely because, they do not recognize our governments, State or national, as institutions designed simply to maintain justice, or to protect all men in the enjoyment of all their natural rights; but only as institutions designed to accomplish such objects as irresponsible cabals of lawmakers may agree upon.” - Spooner, Works I, p.56. - TERRITORIALISM, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, OF ASSOCIATION & DISASSOCIATION, SECESSION, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES, CONTRACTARIANISM, ASSOCIATIONISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, STATISM, SERVILITY, SLAVISHNESS, LAWS

RIGHT: When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.” – Charles Evans Hughes. - It is not a privilege to be free but an inherent right. And no one has any rightful privilege to deprive us of that right, not even in self-chosen exterritorially autonomous communities and societies of volunteers, although, so far, most would not extend that principle and its practice as far. - JZ, 22. 11. 06, 24.2.11. - TO BE & TO ACT DIFFERENTLY, AT THE OWN RISK & EXPENSE, INDIVIDUALISM, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, DIS., SELF-DETERMINATION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

RIGHT: when you consider the individuality of the ‘inalienable rights” phrase and apply the principle, it goes all the way.” – Robert LeFevre, LEFEVRE’S JOURNAL, Fall 76. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

RIGHT: Who is entitled to act today when both major parties and almost all minor parties are wrong on all too many points? It seems that all too many people, even supposedly “educated” ones, can no longer clearly distinguish between right and wrong. Sometimes they even say that it does not matter and they simply act unrestrained and quite wrongly, emotionally, upon a whim, as if they were right, as if anything they did, no matter how criminal and restrictive for others, no matter how atrocious, were simply “right” for them, by their notions of “right”, independence and freedom. They even expect to be respected for their independent actions and initiatives, especially when they are politicians and social reformers. Educated and immoral barbarians, without any sound principles they are, in my eyes. To me it seems obvious that one should be free to secede from such barbarians and to live, exterritorially autonomous, with some like-minded other volunteers under personal laws, in self-chosen or self-established communities or societies of one’s own, as long as one does not raise any territorial claims. - JZ, 28.11.82, 8.5.08, 24.7.12. – FREEDOM OF ACTION & EXPERIMENTATION, AMONG VOLUNTEERS, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PERSONAL LAWS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS.

RIGHTFUL POLITICS: Only exterritorially autonomous politics CAN be rightful, peace-, freedom-, progress-, enlightenment- and prosperity-promoting. - JZ 29.11.92, 24.7.12.

RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS: They would have to include personal law, by individual choice, for all dissenting individuals and minorities, especially for all governments-in-exile that are allied with the enemies of all territorial dictatorships. - JZ, n.d. & 24.7.12. - LIBERATION, REVOLUTION, MILITIA, GOVERNMENTS-IN-EXILE, EXTERRITORIALIST ONES, RECOGNITION, SECESSION, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

RIGHTS: 42, 47, 48, 75, 76, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. – See also the human rights draft in PEACE PLANS No. 4.

RIPUARIAN LAW: The oldest part of the Lex Ripuaria (tit. 31) is found to contain a passage which ensures to the Frank, Burgundian, Alamann or any other, the benefit of his own law.3 In the Capitularies of Charlemagne and of Louis I, recognition was given to the applicability of Roman and other foreign laws to cases involving the respective foreign subjects. 4 -  4 Savigny, op. cit., vol. i, p. 127. LIU, Extraterritoriality, page 29.

RISK: If tolerance of diversity involves an admitted element of risk, intolerance involves a certainty of destruction. - JZ, in pamphlet: TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, DIVERSITY

RISKS: This is a dangerous world by itself. We cannot do much about that. But we have also made it more dangerous or unpleasant than is justified or necessary by our uniform and territorial institutions for all dissenters. Should we thus make them share these artificial risks or should they become free to opt out of them? - JZ, 4.12.90, 10.1.93, 20.9.04. – VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM

ROBBINS, HARRY S.: TC 154, 96, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.

ROBERTS, MILES T.: Needed: A Manifesto for the Green Revolution, 1p outline, favoring individual secession: 15 & 30 in PEACE PLANS 1386-91.

ROBERTS, NICK, In Praise of Jackals: Assassination and Moral Defence Policy. - Nick Roberts - In Praise of Jackals: Assassination and Moral Defence Policy (pdf) Libertarian Alliance, Foreign Policy Perspectives, 15, 1989. - If tyrannicide is meant - why call it assassination? - JZ, 5.10.11. - See under TYRANNICIDE, DEFENCE.


ROBIN HOODLISM: With rowdies, demagogues, self-servers and con-men in parliament, what else but Robin Hoodlism do you expect to be expressed in their laws? – They represent and appeal to the lowest common denominators in the population. – I for one am opposed to Robin Hoodlism. - JZ, 27.2.75. – Genuine self-rule, self-determination, self-management and democracy means something quite different, individualistic and voluntaristic, diverse and quite decentralized, where each society or community can advance at its own speed as far or as little as it wants to. – JZ, 9.5.08. - LAWS, PARLIAMENTS, WELFARE STATE, TAXATION, TRANSFER SOCIETY, VS. PANARCHIES OF VOLUNTEERS.


ROCK MUSIC: Rock music is for rock heads – or people who like noise. – JZ, 24.9.95. – Just a personal opinion for whatever little it is worth to you. - But at least in the music sphere we have many tolerant options already for individual preferences, without disturbing others in theirs. I am not forced to listen to or pay for rock concerts. I save my ear drums for other things. – And fans of rock music are not forced to listen to e.g. jazz or classical music. This is as it should be. - JZ, 9.5.08. - Mutual tolerance for doing the own things - in every sphere! - JZ, 24.2.11.

ROCKER, RUDOLF, State Nationalism (1937)

ROCKEY, JONATHAN LESER, Anarchy is unfortunately an idealistic belief and will almost certainly not become a reality in the near future. Panarchy should be our immediate hope. Panarchy lies, from my knowledge, within the Native American cultures. Instead of capitalistic and materialistic basis which consumes and corrupts our society, Panarchy rests on the principle that the best people in a society are those which give the most. Instead of the hierarchical structure of our churches and school systems, panarchy says that, truly, all men, animals, and nature are equal. Panarchy is true life and living, not the society in which we live now: a society in which WE WAIT ONLY TO DIE! - Jonathan Leser Rockey  (, February 16, 1999. - I plead guilty to correcting some of his spelling mistakes. - In some respect the Internet is also a garbage tip. – I do not agree with most of what he says. But then he is not the only one to misunderstand or misinterpret or abuse the term, unaware of its original coinage and meaning. For this rather look up -  JZ, 21.10.11, 24.7.12. – OBJECTIONS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

ROCKING THE BOAT: Don’t rock the boat!” – Let each rock his OWN boat – unless he promised his passengers a quiet ride. – JZ, 2.2.90. – DIS.

ROCKWELL, LLEWELLYN H., Jr., Illusions of Power [January 2004] An article about the true impotence of power to control and direct social processes. - GPdB.

ROCKWELL, LLEWELLYN H., Jr., The Future of Liberty: A speech to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, from CHALCEDON REPORT, July 1998. "...  the tax collection agency is the teeth of leviathan, just as the central bank is its lifeblood. Undermine the authority of the official confiscators, and society is that much less governable...." - "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." -  "... The most promising sectors of the economy are those that, for all practical purposes, exist in a state of anarchy. Consider the rise of all-private communities, the private courts and arbitration system, the home-schooling movement, and the large and growing microprocessor-related industries. They are wreaking havoc on the plans of political elites. They are causing us to rethink all our assumptions about civil government and the private sector." – MISES, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

ROCKWELL, LLEWELLYN H., Jr., The National Defence Myths. - Llewellyn H. Rockwell - The National Defense Myth - Lew, October 23, 2003.

RODE, GUNARS: Ich bitte um Befreiung von der sowjetischen Staatsangehoerigkeit (I request becoming free of the Soviet State membership.), the case of the Latvian Gunars Rode, 1977, as reported in FAZ, 20 Sept. 1977, 3pp, 174, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PP 1,051. See: RENUNCIATION OF STATE MEMBERSHIP.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH: From Frey, see: Frey, page 3: Religious organizations, of which the Roman Catholic Church is a good example, constitute another case of virtual governments. The Roman Catholic Church has a monopoly over a tiny territory in Rome, but its importance derives from a completely different source – namely, the allegiance of its members. To some extent, it performs activities similar to those of normal governments (for example, it pursues a foreign policy), and it even levies taxes.

ROME, ANCIENT & PANARCHISM: Liu, Exterritoriality, pages 25-28: Somewhat like the xenodikoi in Greece was the Roman magistrate, praetor peregrinus, whose influence on the development of international law is universally recognized. The name of this officer, as it appears in the present form, is, according to Mommsen, an incorrect one, deriving its popularity from mere usage. The full title of the Roman magistrate designated by the abbreviated form prator peregrinus was, under the Republic, praetor qui inter peregrinos jus dicit, and under the Empire, praetor qui inter cives et peregrinos jus dicit.2 The office was established about 242 B. C, in addition to that of the praetor urbanus, which was already in existence. The competence of the peregrine - - [1 Op. cit., p. 192. - - 2 Mommsen et Marquardt, Manuel des antiquités romaines (Paris, 1888-1907), vol. iii (Mommsen, Le Droit public romain, vol. iii), p. 225. - - [26 - - EXTRATERRITORIALITY 306] - - praetor, as his full title suggests, extended to disputes between peregrines and between them and Roman citizens.1 The connotation of the word peregrini is described by Girard as follows: The peregrines, peregrini, formerly hostes, were not, in developed Roman law, true foreigners. The most ancient of them were certainly foreigners bound to Rome by treaties. But the development of the Roman power made them, like the others, members of the Roman State. They were subjects of Rome, the free inhabitants of the empire, who were neither citizens nor Latins.2 - - Outside of the peregrines, the foreigners who did not maintain treaty relations with Rome enjoyed no legal protection and were not amenable to Roman justice.3 It was the peregrines who were placed under the jurisdiction of the praetor peregrinis, and it was to them that he administered the jus gentium, for even the foreigners of allied nationality, who later became subjects of the Roman State, were not amenable to the jus civile, which was applicable to a very restricted number of Roman citizens and Latins.4 With the extension of Roman citizenship to all the provincials of the Empire under Caracalla, in 212 A. D., however, the office of the praetor peregrinus disappeared from the judicial system of Rome.5 - - It is true that the praetor peregrinus of Roman times was merely a Roman officer administering the jus gentium, which - - [1 Ibid., p. 252. - - 2   Girard, Manuel élémentaire de droit romain  (6th ed., Paris,  1918). - - 3 Mommsen et Marquardt. op. cit., vol. vi, pt. ii Mommsen, op. cit., vol. vi, pt. ii), p. 216. - - 4 For the jurisdiction of the praetor urbanus over the Latins, see Mommsen, op. cit., vol. vi, pt. ii, p. 221; Girard, op. cit., p. 112. - - 5  Mommsen et Marquardt, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 260, n. 3. - - [307 - IN EUROPE - - 27] - - was municipal law, to foreigners resident in Rome, and that his competence bears little or no resemblance to the modern system of extraterritoriality, under which the consul or other authority invested with the exercise of the jurisdiction, is appointed by the State which he represents and administers his national law. But the fact that the Romans made a discrimination against the subjects of non-treaty Powers and that even those of the treaty Powers were subjected to a special jurisdiction serves to show the extra-legal status of the foreigner in ancient times, out of which most probably extraterritoriality drew its impetus in its early development. - - The germs of extraterritoriality were, however, not entirely absent in the Roman Empire. In the first century of the Christian era, Emperor Claudius (41-54, A.D.) accorded to the merchants of Cadiz the privilege of choosing magistrates, who were given the jurisdiction of the tribunals established by Caesar in Baetice.1 Under the rule of Justinian (483-565, A.D.), the Armenians were granted the benefit of the same laws on certain subjects as those by which the Romans were ruled; but questions of marriage, succession to property, and personal status generally, were left to be settled either by the Armenians themselves or by a magistrate named by the Emperor to administer Armenian law.2 - [ [1 Miltitz, op. oil., vol. i, p. 15. - 2 Pears, Fall of Constantinople (New York, 1886), p.148.]

ROME, ANCIENT & PANARCHISM: The Romans had special courts for foreigners. Rome did not impose Roman Law upon all the peoples it subjugated but left them, largely, in possession of their own local laws and institutions. To become entitled to Roman Law was considered a privilege and one that was not readily and fast granted to any applicant. - Alas, I have not seen any detailed study of this aspect of the Roman Empire. - JZ, 20.9.04.  - STOBART, J.C.: The Grandeur that was Rome, first published in 1912, A Four Square Book in 1965, revised and edited by W. S. MAGUINESS & H. H. SCULLARD, JZL. At least pages 62 & 179 indicate the degree of local autonomy communities enjoyed when "subjected" to the Roman Empire. Page 177: Greek freedom under Rome. Extension of citizenship: 86 & 96. Secession: 37 & 47. The defeated remain largely independent: 61. Tyrannicide: 114, 115, 145. Assassination as a warfare method: 89, 100, 112. - It is still not sufficiently recognized why the Roman Republic and Empire and Pax Romana succeeded to some extent and why they failed and had to fail. There are dozens of theories on it, among them a monetary freedom one. But the degrees of panarchism that it practised and also that it failed to realize, had much to do both with its rise and its decline. The "barbarian" conquerors were more panarchistic and freedom loving in several respects. - The decisive factors are still more or less "buried" in thousands to tens of thousands of volumes. I would like to see an encyclopedia that would detail what ancient Romans did right and what they did wrongly and listing their mistakes. Too many did just discuss the formal statist features and their military ones or their great leaders and battles. L. Sprague De Camp"s "Lest Darkness Fall", 1939, 1949, is a good but not a sufficient treatment of this subject. - JZ, n.d. - 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."

ROME: As a matter of fact, Seneca made fiery speeches in the Roman forum protesting the adverse balance of trade with India, and the vast sums in gold that were being sent to purchase Indian goods. (*) Some historians have even gone so far as to suggest it was one of the reasons for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Certainly it was for some years a contributing factor. – There were several ports on the Red Sea coast of Egypt where ships were constantly sailing for India – at the rate of one per day in the 120-day sailing season, when winds were favorable. – Louis L’Amour, Education of a Wandering Man, p.189. – This money shortage was also a motive to deteriorate the remaining coinage, leading to all the difficulties and dissatisfactions resulting from inflation. - Even today much rare metal is used, especially in countries like India, as a medium to store and brag with valuables in form of jewelry, or it is stored in the “reserves” of central banks, or of private people, no longer trusting the paper money of their governments, rather than freely circulating in form of coins to promote production and exchange. – Governments consider such coins largely as a dangerous competition to their inflated, forced and exclusive paper currency notes and thus outlawed them as means of payment, illustrating Gresham’s law that bad money with legal tender power drives out good monies that do not have such legalized power. – (*) If only goods-vouchers or service warrants, or clearing certificates, in money denominations, had been sent instead, the balance of trade and payments would have been automatically preserved. But gold can be and was hoarded, by custom. –What did Rome export instead, except its soldiers, its warfare technology and its laws? – Admittedly, there are dozens of other theories attempting to explain the decline of the Roman Republic and Empire. – One of its positive features was that it largely left the laws and institutions of conquered countries untouched and only levied tributes from them and also that it partly suppressed infighting. – If it had merely been a federation of personal law communities of volunteers … But that is not to be expected from an empire based upon conquest and slavery. – As an interesting aside, L’Amour remarked, on pages 147 & 148: “Ambassadors were sent by Rome to the courts of India and China, or in some cases people represented themselves as such. Troups of acrobats and actors had traveled from Rome to China, and plays were performed in Greece using phrases from the language of Ceylon. And there is good evidence that an entire Roman legion sold its services to the Chinese and served as mercenary soldiers in many of their wars.” – I saw nothing on this in the history books that I read. - JZ, 13.9.07. - DECLINE & SHORTAGE OF MEANS OF PAYMENT, DEFLATION, MONETARY DESPOTISM

RON PAUL FORUM: - At least on 2 Jan. 09 it had a short discussion on: What do you think of the political theory of panarchy? - It was caused by on of the articles on Michael S. Rozeff. - At least some participants understood the main points. - JZ, 18.9.11. - See: PAUL, RON

ROSCHER, WILHELM: On Panarchism: Where? Beckerath was steered to de Puydt's article on panarchy by a hint in Roscher's works that I have not yet found in those of his writings in my possession or accessible to me. Will we ever bother to establish comprehensive library services, at least for all pro-freedom texts, e.g. on CD-ROM or online? - JZ, 2.9.04.

ROSENTHAL & KNIGHTON, Extraterritoriality, Problem of "National Laws & International Commerce", Chatham Ho. Papers, paperback, L4.95, Routledge (10.82)

ROSENTHAL, ERWIN I. J., Political Thought in Medieval Islam: An Introductory Outline, Cambridge U.P., 1962.

ROTHBARD, MURRAY N. & PANARCHISM: In our view, the libertarian system would not be compatible with monopoly State defence agencies, such as police and courts, which would instead be privately competitive. Since this is an ethical treatise, however, we cannot here go into the pragmatic question of precisely how such an 'anarcho-capitalist' police and court system might work in practice. For a discussion of this question, see Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, rev. ed., N.Y., Macmillan, 1978, pp 215-241." - Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, 94. - Has he considered other competitive conditions than merely individual free enterprises providing protective company competition? Especially the non-anarchists and non-laissez fairists, with their statist sentiments and weak drives for individual liberty, would tend to subscribe to package deal offers of police, court, prison, insurance, administration and welfare services. And these, among them, would re-constitute States and governments - of their own choice and only for themselves, because they would be without a territorial monopoly and without compulsory membership. To each the government of his or her choice. Then the freedom lovers could also establish their non-governmental societies of their individual preferences - and their freely competing protection agencies, perhaps merely as business enterprises with whom they might temporarily contract. The package deal societies communities governance systems of volunteers might also contract-out services of some of their agencies to individual or corporate outside customers, especially since they might not have much to do internally. (A bit like Swiss Guards hiring their services out internationally.) Thus some individuals might not join any of the package deals of exterritorially autonomous communities but merely contract for some of their services and, perhaps, at the same time, e.g. for the police services of community A, the court services of community B and the prison services of community C. Such free and competitive arrangements would no longer constitute a threat to others, against which they would have to make elaborate and large defence preparations, as is now the rule between territorial States. Internally, among their exterritorially autonomous volunteers, they might in many cases have reestablished their own monopoly defence agencies, however competitive these would have to be, seeing that they are in free competition with similar services by other autonomous volunteer communities in the same territory. Ayn Rand has almost completely misunderstood this situation in her article against "competing governments" in "The Virtue of Selfishness". See my own comments to this article and those of Roy Childs (Childs, R.A., Jr.) in his Open Letter to Ayn Rand. Childs is said to have withdrawn some of his criticism. I would like to see and film and review such withdrawals, if they were made. JZ 19.6.92, 5.1.93. - According to Wendy McElroy, Childs has never explained his withdrawal from his radical stand. - JZ, 9.9.04.

ROTHBARD, MURRAY N., For A New Liberty, revised 1978 edition, pp 231-234. Here he discusses the tuath and the brehons of ancient Ireland, as examples for a largely voluntaristic society. – JZ - IRELAND

ROTHBARD, MURRAY N., Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State." - Murray N. Rothbard, Nation by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State (1993) - SECESSION: offers presently quite a few books on secession. Most are favouring only territorial secession but some do go beyond it. - JZ, 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." - Murray Rothbard, Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State [April 2007] - A paper originally presented in 1993, with strong affinities to a vision of "panarchies." - Ref. by GPdB.

ROTHBARD, MURRAY N., Power and Market, Government and the Economy, Institute for Humane Studies, Menlo Park, Col. 1970, while putting more stress on the fallacies of government intervention than on the free society alternatives, gives glimpses of the alternatives throughout, e.g. on pp. 3,109 & 142 he favors individual secession, page 4: private competing courts, p.175: private law, pp.122/3: competing defence agencies, pp. 162 & 164: panarchism or freedom to be free or unfree under a system of one's choice. - But I never noticed him speaking up or writing clearly for panarchistic communities, whether manned by statists, anarchists or libertarians. - JZ, 17.1.99.

ROTHBARD, MURRAY N., Society Without A State. - Murray N. Rothbard, Society Without A State (1974)  - It contains many of his thoughts that came close to Panarchism. However, an anthology of all relevant extracts in all of his writings, may still have to be provided. I did, probably, find only a fraction of them and would be grateful for hints to those I had missed. - JZ, 2.9.04, 29.1.12, 24.7.12.

ROTHBARD, MURRAY, But more profoundly, ..."Auberon Herbert and the group of English individualists he attracted, were the foremost expositors of voluntary taxation and the voluntary State. Condensed into as few words as possible, their voluntaryist formula was 'The sovereignty of the individual must remain intact, except where the individual coerced has aggressed upon the sovereignty of another unaggressive individual.'" - Rothbard, Murray N., Man, Economy & State, p.159, on and citing Auberon Herbert. - SECESSION, INDIVIDUAL, VOLUNTARY STATE & VOLUNTARY TAXATION & SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL:

ROTHENBERG, ROBERT D. & BLUMENKRANTZ, STEVEN J.: Personal law: A practical legal guide, N.Y., J. Wiley, 1986, XII, 475pp, indexed.

ROUSSEAU, JEAN JACQUES: Somewhere in his Social Contract he said: "Liberty is obedience to the law which one has laid down for oneself." - This is probably the one idea in his writings, which comes closest to those following from individual sovereignty. Kant had something similar to say about this and about freedom for utopian experiments. – JZ, n.d. - PERSONAL LAW

ROUSSEAU'S SOCIAL CONTRACT - A GOOD BEGINNING BUT A BAD ENDING FOR PANARCHIST IDEAS ON THE AUTONOMY OF PEOPLE: The clear-headed libertarian thinkers of the previous century turned away from the state, Proudhon held, because they recognized that human freedom can only come about where men, rather than their governments, are made responsible for the entire range of their private and public acts. Unfortunately, according to Proudhon, 'Rousseau, whose authority has ruled us for almost a century', understood very little about structuring a free society, for in spite of all the philosophical legerdemain he employed to obfuscate his real intentions, it is the state that remains sovereign, not the individual citizen, at the end of his convoluted argument. Rousseau, in promising the individual both liberty and equality in exchange for subordinating his private will to the greater demands of the general will, according to Proudhon, appears at first an enthusiastic advocate of the theory that men are indeed capable of governing themselves without outside interference and thus a friend of liberty. But on closer examination it becomes clear that Rousseau does not have any real trust in the individual as a responsible, free agent, capable of functioning autonomously, in a system of unrestrained self-government. After enunciating the brilliant theory that the social contract renders the people sovereign and therefore completely capable of representing themselves, this 'master of oratorical jugglery' slyly substitutes the will of the majority for the general, collective, indivisible will; then, under pretext that it is not possible for a whole nation to be occupied from morning to night with public affairs, he gets back, by way of elections, to the nomination of representatives or proxies, who shall do the law making in the name of the people, and whose decrees shall have the force of laws.' - In the end, not only has Rousseau denied the capacity of the people for self-government but he turns the idea of association into a device for destroying any effort of people to freely join with one another for social purposes of their own. In Rousseau's version 'of a well-ordered Republic', Proudhon charged, 'no association or special meeting of citizens can be permitted, because it would be a State within a State, a government within a government'. - Completely isolated from one another and totally beholden to (JZ: territorial) political authority for any comradeship they might enjoy as a collectivity, the denizens of Rousseau's ideal society are controlled subjects rather than free citizens capable of conducting their own affairs in open reciprocity with their fellowmen. Since the people, in Rousseau's formulation, are a 'fictitious being', ultimately incapable of any real action or deliberation, it falls upon the prince, who is their 'natural and visible representative', to give them unity and direction. And thus, Proudhon carped, Rousseau finally admits that 'government is not within a society, but outside of it', and that 'democracy has never existed and never will exist'." - W. O. Reichert in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 140/1. – COLLECTIVIST OR INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY? MAJORITARIANISM, TERRITORIALISM, “SELF”-GOVERNMENT, CONSENT, REPRESENTATION, VOTING, ELECTIONS, BALLOTS, ASSOCIATIONISM

ROWAN, CARL & MAZIE, DAVID, Black Separatism: An American Tragedy, READERS’ DIGEST, 12/72, pp. 169-177: Gives details on black separatism and self-segregation, but mostly still rather confused or limited in outlook, while condemning it from the nationalistic point of view. I consider it a promising rather than a tragic development. Objectors, too, should have the option of establishing their own, e.g. Black and White communities, also communities whose members are radially mixed, but they almost never seem to consider this option, which the free societies of panarchism would offer them. – JZ, n.d. & 27.7.12.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., A Foundation for Panarchy, 2008. - 18 KBs. - Michael S. Rozeff, A Foundation for Panarchy (2008) [English] - Michael S. Rozeff, Per la Panarchia (2008) [Italiano] - Note: … this is one of the best short essays on Panarchy. It spells out very clearly the moral and logical reasons for Panarchy, a theory of social living that should be upheld by all those who declare themselves in favour of "We the People" or, in other words, in favour of the Freedom, Safety and Well-being of each and every human being. - GPdB., - Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. Some of his short essays can be found at: - "Panarchy is the true American revolutionary political system, in the spirit of Jefferson. It’s about time we realized this and put it into practice."

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Do You Really Want to Be a Republican or a Democrat? - Do You Really Want To Be a Republican or a Democrat? [English] - (2010) - (2010) Michael S. Rozeff, Vuoi davvero essere un repubblicano o un democratico? [Italiano]

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Essentials of Panarchism, at, 2009. Panarchism is a new political philosophy that builds upon and extends the core concept of consent of the governed, which goes back primarily to John Locke. Consent of the governed is a concept that permeated revolutionary America. It appears in Article 6 of the Virginia B ill of Rights. It appears in the Essex Result. Benjamin Franklin wrote In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.” The Declaration of Independence asserts that “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” - - - Panarchism proposes a comprehensive extension of liberty to the consensual choice of government itself, in form and content. It proposes government by consentfor any persons who arrange such government for themselves. Conversely, it proposes that a government has no authority over any persons who do not consent to it. - - - Panarchy is a condition of human relations in which each person is at liberty to choose his own social and political governance without being coerced. Panarchy means that persons may enter into and exit from social and political relations freely. It means that government exists only with the consent and by the consent of the governed. - - - Panarchism has new conceptions of what a people who are governed, a government, and consent mean. These give rise to a new conception of the non-territorial State and revised ideas about sovereignty and authority. By viewing government as non-territorial, panarchism reorients the movement for liberty away from destroying the governments that others may prefer and toward obtaining the governments that each of us may prefer. - - - Free persons in a free society already practice a degree of panarchy. By individual consent, they associate with those whom they wish to associate with (and who wish to associate with them), and they do not associate with others. By choice, they vary their associations by time, place, duration, and other dimensions. They choose companions, places to live, workplaces, clubs, and churches on the basis of individual consent rendered in a non-coercive social context. Free persons form consensual organizations, associations, and groups. They form themselves into sub-societies and “peoples”, which are groups of persons that, via individual consent, willingly aggregate on various grounds and interests. In doing so, they create multiple coexisting forms of governance whose basis is not territorial (although it may optionally be so) but relational. - - - Panarchism proposes that panarchy be extended to government (or functions of government) in the same way that it is already present in society. Let persons be free to form peoples and to choose their own forms of government. - - - Why? Because consent today is too limited to allow a meaningful sovereignty of people. Because the rulers have become the sovereign and the people their servants. Because complex systems of voting and parties have diluted consent to the vanishing point. Because would-be peoples are thwarted from forming. Liberty does not mean a vote for one of two parties that run a single monopoly government. It means active consent over the very form, as well as the content, of one’s governing relations. - - - Why panarchism? Because in today’s governing relations, we find ourselves living under distant States and governments whose form is not of our choosing. Because the planet is blanketed with States and governments that too often deliver injustice, insecurity, disorder, waste, misery, death, and destruction, as States and governments historically have done. Because States and governments focus and amplify power, using it for purposes that many of us do not believe in. And because governments today legitimate and encourage contentious struggles for domination where one group’s gains is another group’s loss, and where the struggles absorb more and more resources and divert energy from productive to unproductive uses. - - - The liberty that is basic to panarchy promises a better way of life, by extending to each of us the capacity to engage in the social and political relations of our own choosing in accord with our own beliefs. Since persons will not freely consent to governments whose decisions in the main leave them, by their own estimation, worse off, the free choice of government will provide the kind of check-and-balance on government failures and misdeeds that is a critical missing element of today’s political arrangements. - - -Panarchy envisages many possible societies and sub-societies across a land, region, or province. There need not be a single sovereign authority that imposes law on all, unless it happens to be by consent. In panarchy, multiple and diverse sources of self-chosen sovereignty coexist side-by-side, each finding its source of legitimacy from the consent of those who are willing to place themselves within a particular set of governing relations. People freely place themselves within multiple non-territorial governing associations, as contrasted with finding themselvesassigned by authorities on a geographical basis. - - - The American revolutionaries blazed a trail toward non-territorial government when they called for consent of the governed, but they simultaneously veered away from that trail. Just as they skirted the slavery question, they skirted the issues of what constituted a people, a legitimate government, consent, and secession. Article 14 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights sought “to maintain Virginia’s sovereignty over its restless, far-flung western counties.” It proclaimed “That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.” This particular territorial idea of government was justified by a false appeal to a mythical right to uniform government, in order to prevent the formation of West Virginia. Some 85 years later, West Virginia, which for decades had many sound reasons not to be governed by Richmond, finally seceded from Virginia. - - - Little has changed. Despite hundreds of breakaway and secession movements worldwide, the territorial notion of government has not changed. Indeed, many such movements themselves view government as territorial. American federalism has become nationalism. Governments of today are making societies over, based upon claims of legitimate authority that are less rooted in consent than in territorial claims of rulership. - - - The idea of government needs to be severed from the idea of the territorial State and from the notion that the government of such a State is all that government is or can be. Since the State is single, territorial, and coercive, such an idea views government as single, territorial, and coercive. The territorial idea supports States in place. It empties consent of all real meaning and replaces it by the machinations of meaningless votes, party politics, lobbying, redistricting, power, and campaign money flows. The territorial idea of government without consent dooms mankind to living without one of the most basic liberties, which is the liberty to choose one’s government. - - - It is a mistake to identify government as the executive and administrative means of the monopoly State. When those who are pro-State do this, it leaves little or no room for those who do not consent and wish to live by their own forms of government. (society or community! – JZ) When those who are anti-State do this, they become anti-government, a position that does not allow those who want various forms of their own government to exercise their choices. - - - Government is the social coordination of human personal interactions. To the extent that human beings interact with one another, government is thus inescapable. Advocates of no government, unless they eschew all social interaction, can no more live without government than can statists. (Social and statist interactions should be distinguished. – JZ) But the necessity of government does not imply that government must be nonconsensual and territorial. We have an alternative to living under a single territorial State that makes and enforces all sorts of rules, for all of us, all the time. Panarchy is that alternative. - - - We ourselves govern a vast range of human activities by consent, non-territorially, and without the State. This was historically and is currently the case. Persons within human societies create governance from varied and multiple sources that include moral and ethical codes, custom, bodies of judge-discovered law, rules, principles, manners, religion, pacts, agreements, understandings, and contracts, as well as through a variety of instruments, institutions, and organizations that include family, associations, churches, schools, corporations, and business firms. Society, in this sense, which is really many interpenetrating and diverse societies, already reflects a high degree of panarchy. Societies everywhere already employ panarchy as a beneficial principle of social organization and order. - - - Panarchism proposes extending panarchy further. It stands for a world in which people live by the governing relations of their choice while abiding by the decisions of their neighbors to live by theirs. A society with such liberty will hold together in the same ways that societies have always held together: through a complex network of shared values, beliefs, ways, language, and other commonalities that are put to work through self-interest that is expressed in individual, associational, and cooperative endeavors. It will hold together better than today’s societies because the nonconsensual government that fertilizes today’s constant political and economic battles, rebellions, and civil wars will have been reduced. - - - Different people understand freedom and liberty in different ways, and even when they agree, they place different values on liberty. One woman may choose to labor for another for a wage, while another may regard wage-labor as slavery. One man may allow himself to be inducted into an army, while another may look upon the draft as slavery. These different ideas of good and bad government can coexist in panarchy. Liberty and government are not at mutually exclusive poles. Abolishing government per se does not bring liberty for all. Abolishing government and replacing it with one’s own personal vision of liberty does not bring liberty for all. Liberty for all entails the capacity for all to choose their own governments. (And their own societies and communities. – JZ) In panarchy, men and women are free to be unfree (in the eyes of others) to any desired degree. They may enter into many different kinds of governing relations. This sets panarchy apart from political conceptions that deny them the choice of State and government. Panarchists do not attempt to smash the governments others want. They deny no one the freedom to be unfree. However, they deny others (and their States and governments) the freedom to make them unfree. - - - Once we open up our thinking on the question of what government is, we can get away from the idea of “a government” and “the government.” Government is a set of functions that can be identified. Change is not a question of today's government or none. There are all sorts of intermediate possibilities. - - - National governments have absorbed major functions such as old age security, aid to the indigent, and health care from civil society and local government. They have done so via complex majority rules and voting procedures that circumvented consent of the governed. Governments across the world often suppress minorities of many kinds. The imposition of nation-wide rules discriminates against and suppresses all those who do not consent and who do not want their government to handle certain critical issues. Medicare, for example, involves a taking and a wealth transfer. This kind of program could become non-territorial and consensual. Mr. K can subscribe to a plan and belong to a government that deducts from his wages, while Mr. J need not. They can be neighbors and do this. - - - Many of today's government functions can remain in place for those who want them while making them voluntary for those who do not. The idea in these cases is not to end government but make it consensual. Vast amounts of regulation of labor relations, energy, education, health, and welfare are such that one neighbor can live without certain rules even if his neighbor wants them. Instead of attempting to take Medicare away or attempting to persuade voters to vote it down, which plays the game of accepting monopoly and territorial government, panarchism goes at the problem of lack of consent and unjust powers of government in a different way. Let those who want Medicare have it; let those who don't withdraw. Panarchism seizes the moral high ground. Why should those who don't want Medicare be impressed into it by those who do? Isn't this like making everyone belong to the same church? How can there be consent of the governed when we are herded, whether we like it or not, into programs that affect our lives in major ways? - - - Coordination problems involving human interaction are not going to disappear. The reform of government even where coordination issues are not at issue may well be difficult. Panarchism does not deny these difficulties. It sets out a just and peaceful destination that can be achieved peaceably, which is a future of reform in which the State abandons its territorial claims. This may happen little by little. It may happen by degrees. It may happen partially and gradually, or it may happen by leaps. Consensual and nonconsensual government are likely to continue to exist alongside one another for some time. Reforms, small and large, are unpredictable. They are for people themselves to advance and accomplish. Every step that people take, peaceful and nonaggressive, toward devising and living by their own government is a step toward more complete panarchy and greater liberty. - - - Further ideas on panarchy may be found here. - - - The helpful comments of Adam Knott and John Zube are gratefully acknowledged, but all errors herein are solely mine. - [Why do I pack such texts so tightly together? It enables me to use automatic sorting for them as a single paragraph. In this respect I will rather please myself than your text preferences. - JZ, 21.9.11. ]

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Everything the Government Touches. 2008, 16 KBs, on - Michael S. Rozeff, Everything the Government Touches (2008) [English] - Michael S. Rozeff, Tutto quello che il governo tocca ... (2008) [Italiano] - Note: This is an enlightening essay on non-territorial self-determination, the form of government of the future if we want to exit the present quagmire and incumbent disaster that the territorial central states or super-states are manufacturing for all of us, slowly but assuredly. - GPdB. - " This ideal, freedom of choice in governance, is eminently just. It is a natural right that flows directly from our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is why we have a multitude of native nations within the boundaries of the U.S. "Under this policy, the U.S. recognizes 550 native nations within its borders. These are not state or federal agencies. This policy was established in 1970 by President Richard Nixon and reaffirmed on June 14, 1991 by President George Bush." ( - Cannot non-native Americans gain the same rights as native Americans and have their own governance?" – Q.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Good and Bad Government. - (Also a panarchist article, although not explicitly so. - My choice of such articles of his is, probably, still incomplete. I am waiting for his own list or that of another one of his fans. - I also failed, so far, to include his free banking and financial freedom articles in my bibliography and my free banking A to Z. - JZ, 25.9.11.) - Aggression is the act of attacking, invading, or injuring a peaceful or innocent person. Peaceful or innocent behavior is non-aggressive behavior. (Peaceful behavior does not exclude defensive behavior, which may include actions to repel aggression.) - - Human government is the means of coordinating interpersonal human action. - - There is good government and there is bad government. To begin with they are defined next according to the libertarian view, which is then expounded. Later, I look at good and bad government in greater generality. - - The defining feature of bad government is coordination by aggression, that is, either compulsion(power, violence) or imposition (deception, fraud, trickery, cheating) against the wills of peaceful people who are not using either compulsion or imposition. - - Good government is government that is not bad government. - - A (political) State is an organization that employs bad government. - - (General) political freedom is the (general) social condition of human action in which there is not bad government. - - A particular political freedom is a variety of human action undertaken in a condition in which bad government does not coordinate that human action. For example, freedom of assembly occurs when bad government does not affect the wills of people in the act of assembling, or when neither compulsion nor imposition affect the wills of people in the act of assembling. - - Since the set of human action is indefinitely large, the set of all particular political freedoms is indefinitely large. Any list of political freedoms is bound to be incomplete. - - (*) Since a State employs bad government, a State does not protect political freedom. A State destroys political freedom. - - Any supposed freedom, such as freedom from starvation, that is obtained by use of the State, and thus by use of bad government, cannot be and is not a freedom, since the very use of bad governmentaffects the wills of some peaceful persons. So-called positive freedoms, compliments of the State, are merely instances of bad government in action. - - A political right is the same as a political freedom, except that it is couched in different terms. Everything that is called a right is not a right, anymore than everything that is called a freedom is afreedom, as the case of positive “freedoms” demonstrates. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Since such an entitlement requires bad government,there is no such right and no such freedom. (This does not mean that good government cannot bring about protection of the family.) - - Since rights are the same as freedoms, no complete list of rights can be made. - - (*) All of the preceding that begins with the definition of good and bad government is libertarian political philosophy, and it all follows from the definition of bad government. - - While this clarifies the libertarian case, it does not solve the problem of philosophical conflicts. Suppose that political opponents, libertarian and non-libertarian, agree on what compulsion and imposition in government mean. Then they may still disagree about what is good and bad. The libertarian argues that any compulsion and imposition is bad under most or even all circumstances,while the non-libertarian argues that some compulsion and imposition is good under some or even many circumstances. - - What the libertarian thinks is bad government, the non-libertarian may think of as good government. - - This argument cannot be settled because different people have different ideas of what is good andbad. In order to choose among the alternative forms of government, a person has to decide what is good and bad. - - Suppose the non-libertarian succeeds in imposing his form of government on the libertarian. Then the libertarian is unhappy because he experiences what for him is compulsion and/or imposition. Now suppose the opposite. Suppose that the libertarian succeeds in imposing his form of governmenton the non-libertarian. Then the non-libertarian is unhappy because he thinks that the good is going unachieved and/or that things are bad without the presence of compulsion (or what the libertarian thinks of as bad government.) - - A solution to this conflict is available. If each man chooses his own government and allows the other man the equal freedom to choose hisown government, then each can live in peace with the government of his choice. As there is freedom of worship, which is non-compulsion in the choice ofreligion, there can be freedom of government, which is non-compulsion in the choice of government. Each may think that the government of the other is bad, but each also thinks that his own government is good. What is required for a solution between them is abiding the other man’s government. - - I believe this is a good solution. For one thing, it establishes an open competition. Each person can observe the outcomes of his own choice and learn about the outcomes of alternative choices made byothers. He can switch governments, in the same way that he switches cars, churches, and pizzas. Thegovernments that supply their clients then have to change their ways of operating toward satisfying them or else losing membership. The incentive works in the direction of greater client satisfaction. - - Two things, at least, stand in the way of this outcome. One is intolerance and the other is the attempt to dominate others and gain from it. Utopia is not going to break out suddenly. - - The perfect should not, however, be the enemy of the good. It is the idea of a variety of consensual governments operating on what is now the territory of a single government that matters here. It is the concept that government, which is the coordination of interpersonal human action, need not necessarily be a single government over all persons in a given region. A very great amount of interpersonal action can be coordinated in different ways for different people who are living near oneanother. For example, a good many people wish to sleep when it is dark, and they do not want to bedisturbed by loud music and other people mowing their lawns at 3 a.m. Government coordinates thisby various laws, but people also do this themselves by choices of location; and property developers who owned and leased property could do this by creating rules that satisfied lessors. - - The U.S. government says that every citizen must participate in a variety of social programs. These are a major part of government today. This is like saying that there is one church in America and everybody is a member, whether they like it or not, and every person must contribute a certain amount of their income which will then be distributed according to certain rules decided by an official church body. Let those who want such rules and programs have them, and those who do not want them not have them. Open these programs to membership only upon subscription and not by compulsion. Let neither side force its views on the other. Let each side mind its own business and keep its hands off the business of others. - - Some people want lots of government, others want little or none. Both (All three groups! – JZ) cannot have their way if thereis a single government. Both can have their way by choice of government. To get this, both have to give up the goal of making others conform to their own choice. - - One of the main principles that Americans hold dear and have in common is freedom. Freedom involves acting without being compelled to act against one’s will. There cannot be freedom without tolerance of what other people do with their freedom. There is freedom of movement to the extent that we tolerate where other people travel; we do not interfere with their movements. There is freedom of work to the extent that we ignore what others do when they choose their work; we do notinterfere with their work. There is freedom of worship because we ignore the religions of others and how they worship. - - In the case of work, the U.S. has developed rules that govern every aspect of hiring and firing, hoursworked, overtime, safety, liability, unionization, and so on. Freedom has been drastically reduced. Inorder to opt out, many businesses have moved to overseas jurisdictions. A single government backed up by a single judiciary coordinates the personal interactions of millions of employers and employees, whether they like it or not. Why can’t those who want to opt out of these arrangements be able to opt out? The only thing keeping many of them within this system is government force thatis designed to favor certain interests at the expense of others. In this arena of human interaction as inmany others, it is easy to conceive of multiple governments on the same territory. If one business and its employees want a government that meticulously sets the work rules, let them have it. And let those who do not want such a government coordinate their interactions in other ways. One can easily have one business operating with one set of rules in the same county or region or state as another business operating with a different set of rules. That is what goes on in the world today among countries. - - The American Dream is a dream of general freedom. It has become a nightmare of compulsion and imposition in the eyes of those Americans who have different ideas of good and bad government from the government that they are forced to live under and that routinely violates their freedom. - - Let Americans through their government stop being busybodies, busily interfering with each other’s lives constantly and in minute detail. This is the opposite of freedom, done in the false name of freedom. - - There is only one way out: choice of government. This does not mean a vote for one of two parties that runs a single monopoly government. It means consent over the very form and content of one’s government. This consent will lead to multiple non-territorial governments. - (*) Such truthful observations are not reasons for declaring them as fully as possible, at the present stage of our knowledge of them. - JZ, 21.10.11. - CHOICE OF GOVERNMENT - FOR INDIVIDUALS AND MINORITIES, TOO. AMERICAN DREAM.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Government Based on Coercion Cannot be Tamed. [Alas, the links do not work in my copy of this article. - JZ, 25.9.11.] - The U.S. federal government is on a course of self-destruction. People of many political persuasions know this. People who are against coercive government know this. People who favor coercive government know this. People who do not mind if the federal government self-destructs know this, and people who want to save the federal government know this. - - From a scientific viewpoint, one of the interesting aspects of a government that is self-destructing isthat the process cannot be stopped, even when people who want to stop it, try. Government based on coercion cannot be tamed. It keeps on running until the clock stops ticking and the bomb goes off. - -[The building, existence, stockpiling and finally the use of nuclear mass murder devices is based upon the foundation of territorial States, in combination with the principle and practice of collective responsibility. They are not tyrannicide bullets. The kill a tyrant, indeed, but only together with his mostly innocent victims. - JZ, 25.9.11.]TheCommittee for a Responsible Budget,which is part of the New America Foundation, consists of Washington insiders. It chairman is William Frenzel. Leon Panetta was a co-chair up until joining the CIA. TheBoardof Directors is strictly Establishment. So are the Directors. Among them are Vic Fazio, Alice Rivlin, Robert Reischauer, Lawrence Summers, David Stockman, Paul Volcker, and David M. Walker. These people support the State, the federal government, the republic, democracy, and the Constitution. They would vigorously deny that they don’t. - - These people do not want the federal government to destroy itself, but they tell us in no uncertain terms that the federal government is on precisely that course. It is precisely because this committee is made up of numerous Washington establishment figures that their statements are useful in complementing and confirming the observations of LRC writers, who might otherwise be viewed asunduly radical, alarmist, or biased. Here is a sample of statements coming out of this committee. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. - - “The economy is in crisis, the deficit is out of control, all of the Bush tax cuts are about to expire, and the tax code is in many ways broken--this is no time to think small,” remarked Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. - - “Borrowing has ballooned to unimaginable levels. A $1 trillion deficit—more than twice the previous record—now appears to be a conservative estimate for fiscal year 2009. The debt is already over $10 trillion. And to paraphrase President-elect Obama, economic conditions will probably get worse before they get better. Yet as bad as things seem today, the future looks bleaker. The projected rapid growth in spending—driven primarily by the aging of the population and health care cost growth— will put this country’s fiscal and economic health in permanent jeopardy. If not brought under control or paid for with new revenue, this growth will turn trillion dollar deficits from an exception to the norm. - - “In its recent Budget Outline, the Administration claims to reduce the deficit by paying for its new initiatives, winding down the war in Iraq, and raising taxes on higher earners. In their budget, the Administration displays policy changes relative to a current policy baseline. The budget relative to the standard current-law baseline, however, reduces taxes, increases mandatory spending, and increases the deficit.” - - “Including the costs of his health care plan, spending would grow considerably under President Obama’s budget. Under the current law baseline, outlays would return to a fairly average level ofGDP after the costs of the current economic and financial crisis have passed. Under the President’s budget, however, outlays as a share of the economy would reach a permanently higher level, and would only grow from there as population aging and rising health care costs take their toll on the budget. - - “Mandatory payments – the combination of mandatory programs and net interest spending – increase from 62 percent of total government spending in 2008 to 72 percent of total spending in 2019 under the President’s budget. - - “While it makes sense that the President would advocate for the policies on which he campaigned, we worry about the introduction of too much new permanent spending before addressing the unsustainable growth of existing programs. - - “The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has warned that the President’s budget is not aggressive enough in reducing the medium or long-term deficit, and CBO’s [Congressional Budget Office] analysis projects a significantly worse situation than the Administration does, with the President’s Budget plan resulting in larger and continuously rising budget deficits. - - “The budget proposal would increase the debt held by the public from $5.8 trillion, or 40.8 percent of GDP, in 2008 to $17.3 trillion, or 82.4 percent of GDP, by 2019. - - “CBO’s recent analysis of the President’s budget paints a dismal fiscal picture, with deficits not onlycontinuing, but increasing, as far as the eye can see, and debt growing to levels not seen since World War II. Although large short-term deficits may be necessary to put the economy on a path to recovery, debt cannot sustainably continue to grow as a percent of GDP over the long-term. If deficits are not eventually reduced to manageable levels, they will threaten long-term economic growth and impair the normal functions and flexibility of government. - - Being supporters of the State, this Committee recommends the only remedy available to the government to prevent fiscal disaster: higher taxes. - - “The Task Force would be wise to focus on base broadening by making recommendations to reform tax expenditures, and it should explore alternative means of raising revenue. Additionally, the Committee recommends that the Administration remove the restriction that prohibits the consideration of tax increases for families making under $250,000 a year.” - - No doubt, the projections of the alarmed Establishment are conservative! If any serious budget analyst were to go through the budget carefully and pinpoint all of its rosy assumptions that are unlikely ever to occur, the deficit projections would be even greater. Based on these optimistic deficit projections, the Obama budget shows debt doubling between 2008 and 2013. The rise is likely to be even greater. It then shows debt rising by less than 50 percent between 2013 and 2019, as in the best years of the nineties. Given the sour economy, falling tax revenues, and higher government spending, this is a pipe dream. - - And so, in the good old American way, the Washington insiders attempt to alter the course of thegovernment while preserving it. Their goal is to tame the government. It’s not going to happen. It can’t be done. - - Why not? Why can government not be reformed? The government we have is coercive by construction. The law of the land is coercive by construction. They involve majority rule in which one group is able legally to impose its wishes on other groups by force. - - A non-coercive government can be reformed. People only need to stop using its services. It theneither shapes up and responds to people’s needs or it loses out to alternative means of governance. - - A coercive government invariably imposes losses on some while providing gains to others. (The same person may gain from one vote and lose from another.) To survive, the state has to juggle theselosses and gains so as to not to alienate too many people. Power has to ensconce itself. It cannot relysolely on the use and threat of force. That is too costly a means to maintain power. Instead, it seeksto make itself indispensable. It seeks to weave itself into the basic fabric of daily life. It inserts itselfinto basic needs that involve food, health, money, financing, education, and so on. Thus, the survival of the State goes hand-in-hand with growth in government because the growth allows the State to entangle many more people in many more ways so that undoing the resulting society becomes too costly and scary a possibility to the people caught in the web. - - The governed people have boundless demands. If they can be fulfilled by predatory methods that are legal, then predation will grow. The coercive democratic government that fails to limit the objects or spheres over which it governs, provides the focal point for legal predation. All the government need do is obtain a working majority of votes in order to enlarge its power and reach. The limits to government intrusion depend on custom, not just written law, because written law can be bent and re-interpreted. The growth process takes time. If growth produces obvious negatives by way of economic hardships and if these are recognized as attributable to government, then the people may not accept it. They will attempt to limit or slow the growth. These efforts may fail, however, in which case people become discouraged. - - Predation cannot increase over long periods of time unless there is an external process of growth of product to be preyed upon. The free market provides such a process. Since competition produces losers as well as winners, it provides a fertile arena for protection rackets to emerge. The protectors extract rents for themselves while they meet the demands of those in the free market to nullify it. Thus, gangsters will infiltrate both labor unions and employers, as each side tries to repel the other and take advantage of the other. In bad times, when businesses are stressed, the gangster will offer services to protect the struggling firms by forming a cartel and keeping others out of the business while enforcing restrictions. When governments do these things, they reduce economic growth by preventing competition. Optimal legal predation sets a tax rate or extraction rate from the population that allows the product to grow and does not stimulate rebellion while maximizing the present value of extracted product. - - Furthermore, the growth of government is assured by a second circumstance, which is that the use of power attracts people who want to use that power and who compete to use that power. - - Any attempt to cut back this growth or tame it poses a threat to the State’s survival and to the power-using inclinations of those in power. Such attempts at reform open up politics to new negotiations, new votes, new priorities, and new coalitions. They threaten to reduce the scope of power exercised by rulers. They alert the citizenry to entirely new possibilities. They unhinge old and established alliances and interests. In all reform movements lie great risks to the established system, interests, and people in power. If they cannot control these reforms, they will want to squelch them. If they control them, you can be sure that no real reforms will be forthcoming. - - The governing establishment, left and right, is highly conservative in one major respect, which is the maintenance and extension of the existing power structure and hold of coercive government over the private lives and liberties of Americans. Not wanting to take the risks of reforming government and having much to gain by extending government, the government grows. - - The interesting phenomenon emerges, which is that the government grows too much and risks its own destruction, even while those who are close to government, in and out, see that the government’s very survival is threatened. This is because growing government is advantageous to the rulers, both personally and in terms of managing to hold power over society, and because cutting government back opens up many political risks. It is far easier for those out of power, like many on the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, to identify the survival threat and warn against it, than it is for those in power to do anything about it. Those in power want to retain power and get re-elected. Their time horizons are rather short. It hardly pays them to do something for the long-term good, even of the government, especially when that something involves large political risks. To upset one or two constituencies by cutting back their benefits may mean losing office. - - There is no question but that the unmitigated profligacy of Bush II and now Obama is hastening theday when the federal government implodes and takes the country on a far from merry ride downhill. Labeling them (fascist and socialist) hardly even matters. Obama is now fully responsible for the slide. His across-the-board spending increases in all departments of government are not stimulus. The intent is to exercise power, especially by Democrats. The intent is give us bigger government, as his anti-Reagan rhetoric makes clear. (Reagan gave us bigger government too.) Bush gave us Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama gives us Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama accuses Bush of irresponsibility. He then turns around and gives us a new era of irresponsibility. - - The conclusion, which I pose as a theorem of political dynamics, is that government based on coercion cannot be tamed. Coercive governments can and do commit suicide. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP IN STATES, COERCION, REFORMS? USA.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Liberty in the Choice of Governance. 2009, 16KBs, in - Michael S. Rozeff, Liberty in the Choice of Governance (2009) [English] - Michael S. Rozeff, Libertà di gestione (2009) [Italiano] - Note: Throughout this essay Michael Rozeff keeps repeating in various ways the same message, namely: liberty to choose one's governance. The fact that such a simple and reasonable request (already contained in the Declaration of Independence: "government ... deriving their just power from the consent of the governed") should be so insistently reiterated makes someone wonder in which type of crazy world we live nowadays. Then it is sufficient to remember the familiar slogans: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and we immediately understand that we are still in State Oceania in permanent conflict with State Estasia and State Eurasia. - That is why essays like this are necessary in order to accelerate the moment when Big Brother (the monopolistic territorial state) is erased from the face of the earth and the ghastly nightmare is finally over. - GPdB. - Naturally, we also need the right or freedom to choose non-governmental societies or communities for ourselves, all without a territorial monopoly. - JZ, 18.9.11.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Love it or Leave it? - Possibly his latest and best panarchist article. I came across it only yesterday. But when I tried to open my download, appearing in an MSDOS version, my system gave me a warning about it. Perhaps that version is infected. I deleted it and downloaded it in the HTML version and that worked O.K. - JZ, 28.9.11.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., New Holidays or Freedom Days. - This list and the names are illustrative only. - All these days are based on two premises: whatever good or service the State claims it can provide, we can provide ourselves without the State. Whatever good or service the State claims that it provides that we do not want, we can live without. - These are not national or official holidays. In fact, there will be an Unholiday Day (see below.) - The list is far from complete, and each item also has an incomplete list of entries and examples. The reader can supplement and add to these lists. We could easily have every day of the year be a freedom day. - The idea of this list is to broach the idea of Freedom in a different way. Since Freedom is now a foreign idea to most people, many approaches to bring it to consciousness are needed. This is one way. - - Here is the list of new holidays. - - Unelection Day. This is the day on which voter turnout became zero. Well, not really zero, but such a small number that voting became meaningless. It is the day when oodles of people pressed so few levers and buttons that they de-legitimized the State and it withered away from lack of support. - - Unregistration Day or Unpermit Day or Unlicensing Day. This is the day when oodles of people stopped registering with the State. They stopped registering for political party affiliations. They stopped registering their vehicles, from automobiles to bicycles to boats to snowmobiles. Youths stopped registering for public schools. They stopped registering for the military draft. They stopped registering for passports and driver’s licenses. They stopped registering for Social Security and Medicare. Businesses of all kinds stopped registering for licenses. Inventors stopped registering for patents. Doctors stopped registering for medical licenses. People stopped registering for professional licensing of all kinds, from accounting to architecture to lawyering to zoo-keeping. People and businesses engaged in transportation and communications no longer applied for licenses. Hunting licenses stopped. No one registered their pets. Immigrants no longer had to register. No one registered to vote. No one got a tax registration or identification number. No one registered guns, from handguns to automatic machine guns. People stopped getting marriage licenses who did not want them. No one registered for jury duty. No one who did not want them had to get permits or licenses from the State. - - Uninspection Day. This day commemorates when people stopped getting inspections done by State order. This is the day when State inspectors were barred from entering anyone’s premises unless they wanted them on there. On this day, State inspectors had nothing to inspect. They could not hunt for environmental infringements, safety violations, or anything else. - - Unrequirement Day. On this day, manufacturers, shippers, wholesalers, retailers, and all other businesses from the smallest to the largest stopped obeying State requirements having anything to do with labor, hours worked, pay, overtime, workweek, hiring and firing, safety, and unions. Businesses chose the hours they wanted to. Manufacturers no longer paid any attention to State regulations concerning products. They freed themselves to produce whatever they wanted to. They no longer obeyed regulations on energy, safety, the environment, product size or design, or anything else they wanted to ignore. Retailers sold whatever products they wanted to. Whoever wanted to transport mail in any form could do so. Whoever wanted to provide judicial services could do so. Whoever wanted to provide police or defense services could do so. Whoever wanted to produce drugs could do so. - - Unholiday Day. This day celebrates the day when people stopped celebrating official national holidays. - - Uncensus Day. This is the day when oodles of people stopped sending in their census forms and stopped answering doorbells and knocks at the door when census takers came around. - - Untax Day. This is the day that a network of programmers launched software that enabled anyone to stop paying withholding tax. This is the day that people in great numbers vetoed the income tax by using software that disabled automatic tax deductions. This is the day that people gained the capacity to disable paying sales and excise taxes and did so in large numbers. This is the day that government was brought to a grinding halt. - - Unlaw Day. On this day, people en masse ignored the drug laws. Because of Untax Day, the State authorities could no longer enforce the drug laws. All people charged with victimless crimes demanded jury trials, and the juries stopped convicting people of victimless crimes. - - Airport Freedom Day. This comes under the rubric of uninspection day, but it is such a special annoyance that it is separated out here. This is the day when oodles of people refused to undergo any inspections at airports. They bulldozed past airport inspectors. They lifted them bodily and carried them outside the air terminals to the parking lots where they fed them with hot dogs, potato chips, and soft drinks. No one was hurt. Inside the terminal, all machinery for inspection was dismantled by scores of people with the appropriate tools and blowtorches. - - Ridicule Day. This is the day when oodles of people showed up at the offices of elected officials and jeered at them. They carried them from their offices and unceremoniously tossed them into portable swimming pools before escorting them to their vehicles. They locked them out of their offices. The rest of the day was spent celebrating. - - Ungovernment day a.k.a. Independence Day. This is the day when the State no longer forced anyone to be under its rule who did not want to be. Also known as Freedom Day. - LIBERATION, PEACEFUL REBELLION, PRIVATE INSTEAD OF PUBLIC HOLIDAYS.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., On Dissolving the United States of America. 2008. - - An enjoyable essay on a desirable future for America (January 2008) - GPdB. reference. - On attempting to download it, it get the message: The source file could not be read! Who or what is blocking it. - But I was able to copy it from the screen and then to place it in a WORD file. - JZ, 18.9.11.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., On Extending Your Liberty Rightfully. - This excellent panarchist article is also online but I do not have its URL on hand. - Many of his numerous articles express also monetary and financial freedom as well as close to panarchist ideas, without indicating this fact in their title or mentioning such terms in their text. - I would like to see all of them offered in an indexed list, perhaps including all the kinds of freedom, writing and justice books and essays that he likes and which are not or no longer copyrighted, but, at least pointing them out and their source. - This kind of cheap but very powerful publishing is still all too under-utilized. Recently I bought 3 packs of 10 DVDs each, with each of the packs costing me only A$ 3, i.e. only 30 cents per disc of 7GBs! - Great and very affordable freedom of expression opportunities are there - but remain still and largely unused. - Not everybody should have to make a comprehensive search on the IN for such material. Division of labour should be applied here, too and result in corresponding special freedom libraries cheaply offered on discs. - Potentially, everybody with sufficient computer skills, could offer such libraries. Alas, my skills in that sphere are still shining by their absence. - In all too many ways I am still a computer idiot. - That MIGHT change - if I live healthily enough another 20 years. - JZ, 21.9.11. - On Extending Your Liberty Rightfully - by Michael S. Rozeff. - - Your liberty is a condition of your actions, marked by the absence of laws and rules imposed on you by other people that restrict, under the sanctions of force and punishment, your capacity to make your own choices. The organization of people imposing these laws is the State. - Morality, or what one regards as right and wrong, does not enter these definitions and does not haveto enter the discussion. Morality is your personal choice because one of your choices is deciding foryourself what acts are wrongful and another choice is deciding whether to act wrongfully or not. Noteveryone agrees on what acts are wrongful or how to act. In deciding these matters, one has to cometo terms with what others (and your God if you are a believer) consider to be wrongful. One does notlive in a vacuum. Life is social. If you consider robbery to be rightful and others (and your God) do not, you can expect consequences if you engage in robberies. - - My personal notion is that wrongful acts are those that injure others by various ways of invading their person, lives, and property. But people have different ideas about property and different ideasabout what is wrongful. This may cause the workings out of human relationships under liberty tovary in practice, but the above definition of liberty still stands. Liberty is your freedom to decide matters without being forced. - - Liberty does not equate to lawlessness. Liberty does not exclude that you live under laws and rules of your own choosing, for you may choose laws and rules that you prefer, such as laws against crimes like murder and robbery. Your liberty excludes laws being forced upon you against your will but allows you the scope to choose laws to live with. - - The State consists of all those people that force laws upon you without your consent. This means that the State decides what is right and wrong and imposes its ideas on both its willing and unwilling subjects. A State imposes its morality on all citizens within its realm. - - Liberty even includes that you choose to become a State and use force on others. (Provided these others are your voluntary victims. No so unlikely, seeing the percentage of territorial statists in the present populations. – J.Z., 2.7.12.) A person who wishes to circumvent the State so as to enhance his liberty to commit acts against others that they regard as wrongful is just as much an enemy of the people he wrongs as is the State. He is basicallyout to replace the State by his own State. He wants to impose force and punishment on others and/or he wants them to behave in accordance with his idea of what is wrongful. He wants to impose his morality on others. That is what a State does via its laws. - - I personally consider injuring others by invasion to be wrongful, but that is a subjective statement, not a statement of objective fact. (It fast ceases to be merely subjective when you are the one who is stabbed or shot or raped by someone! – JZ) We have to recognize that liberty includes the liberty for others todo what we consider to be wrongful things. (Only among themselves! – JZ) There is no uniformity of morality. There is no objective right or wrong that can be proven or that everyone recognizes. (There is, for those, who realize that Kant’s definition of right is correct! – J.Z.) This inability to prove an objective morality does not mean that man is doomed to live in chaos. Far from it. If there exist groups of people with willing agreement on morality, and there always are such groups, this coalescence of values greatly enhances the prospects of peaceful societies. These societies can co-exist. These groups can be quite large and lend a high degree of stability to the greater Society that comprises many component societies. - - Those who favor liberty argue that the benefits of liberty and rival laws far outweigh the costs of having a State impose its morality on everyone and every society via its laws. The State basically tends to homogenize and eliminate societies within its borders. It merges different social institutions into [the? - JZ] State. The greater Society becomes the State, and vice versa. Liberty allows societies to flourish side-by-side. - - In practice, the State is a complex organization. By rough but still useful analogy, one may think of the State’s organization as being like that of a corporation. A corporation has a chief executive officer; a State has a president or a premier or a dictator or a chief-of-state. A corporation has officers; a State has Congressmen or parliamentarians or legislators. A corporation has managers; aState has officials. A corporation has employees; a State has bureaucrats. A corporation has owners; a State has voters. A corporation has customers; a State has citizens. - - A corporation has rivalry within its domain among departments, employees and employers, managers, and so on. So does a State. Neither is monolithic. Within a State, voters sometimes win on some laws, and sometimes lose on others. Lawmakers and executives may be at odds. Lawmakers are divided. Lawmakers and bureaucrats may be at odds. There are all sorts of rivalries over laws and law enforcement. - - Since the leaders of the State have powers that greatly exceed those of others in the State, we often think of the State as being concentrated among those leaders. They represent the State or are its focal point. They coordinate its activities. They control agendas. They initiate the making of laws and carrying out of laws. They approve and disapprove. Still, the activities of voters, agencies, bureaucrats, and others in the State cannot be entirely disregarded. There is a great deal of pulling and hauling that goes on. - - The people who force laws on you include all those people in the State. This includes voters and all those who participate in the making and implementation of these laws, such as parliaments that make laws, executives who carry them out, corporations that influence the State’s lawmakers, judges who interpret laws, tax collectors, agencies and rule-makers, and, of course, voters. - - When you vote, you are part of the State. When you contribute to a political campaign, you are partof the State. When you run for office, you are part of the State. When you are employed by the State to do its tasks, you are part of the State. In all these instances, you are participating in actively forcing laws upon other people. When you are a vendor to the State (or the State is your customer), you are not part of the State. - - When you approve of a law of the State, there is no conflict of that law with your liberty. When youdisapprove of a law and find it forced on you, then the condition of your liberty is being restricted:you are unable to make certain choices without facing sanctions. You, as a citizen of a State (whichis a legal designation created by States) find yourself on both the giving and receiving end of laws. You approve of some laws, and you disapprove of others. You may approve of a law against robbery while disapproving a law against alcohol consumption. - - In reality, you may find, even with liberty, that you cannot choose every law that you want. Your choice may be restricted to packages of laws. Liberty then has to be understood as the absence of laws and rules imposed on you by other people that restrict, under the sanctions of force and punishment, your capacity to make choices over packages of laws. In reality, liberty may mean thatyou accept a certain number of laws of which you disapprove because, at the same time, you accept other laws of which you approve. Nevertheless, if the laws could be unpackaged and your range of choices could be enhanced, then your liberty could be enhanced. To keep matters simple, I will continue to speak of the case of one law at a time, but what I say applies equally well to packages of laws. - - When you are outvoted on a law, your liberty diminishes. When you vote on a law that you approve of, your liberty does not diminish. However, you diminish the liberty of others who disapprove of that law. The minority or dissenting group of voters on any side of a law, finds its liberty restricted. If the vote is 53-47, then 47 percent of voters find their liberty is diminished. - - This is not the whole story, because many people do not vote who have given up on the process of voting. Suppose the non-voters dissent. Then the entire dissenting group can be a majority of all people in the country. Out of 100 possible voters, suppose 35 do not vote. Suppose that the remaining 65 vote 33-32 to pass a law. Then, in fact, 33 people approve of the law and 67 people disapprove. - - Extending your liberty means extending the range of your choices made under laws of your own choosing and not under laws made by others and imposed on you. Liberty does not mean lawlessness, unless you choose to live in a condition of lawlessness. It means having a choice of laws, or consenting to laws. - - Let us consider extensions of liberty in which no injury by invasive action is done to anyone else. Inthis case, those who are intent on expanding liberty aim only to extend their own liberty. I call this extending liberty rightfully. - - Why limit the extension of liberty to one’s own liberty? The State, by definition, is that organizationof people that imposes laws. Extendingyour liberty rightfully means reducing the hold of the State’slaws overyour choices. It does not mean your changing the laws so as to affect what you conceive tobe the liberty ofothers. You do not know how they might dispose of their liberty. You do not knowwhat they consider to be rightful and wrongful choices. Their liberty involves their capacity to make their own choices. If you substitute your social and political framework for what theirs might be, then you are a State. That is the reason for limiting extensions of liberty to one’s own liberty. - - Thus, extending your liberty rightfully does not mean smashing or abolishing the State, because there are those among your fellow countrymen who want some of the laws made by the State. If youabolish the State, you abolish the exercise of their liberty. Extending your liberty rightfully does not entail your taking control of the State and changing its laws to suit your preferences. That too diminishes the liberty of those of your countrymen who prefer laws different from those you may make. What you think of as a law that enhances the well-being of others, by enhancing what you conceive of astheir liberty does not necessarily raise their well-being. Suppose you control the Stateand make abortion illegal (or legal) under your conception of liberty. Either course is bound to make some people unhappy. - - If the State happens to disintegrate while you are extending your liberty rightfully, that is different from your smashing, uprooting, or abolishing it. The State, remember, is an organization of people.It does not just disintegrate like a corpse mouldering in the grave. It disintegrates by the choices andactions of people within the organization. If, while people are extending their liberty, while reducingthe State’s influence over them, the members of the State decide to alter its size, content, reach, and power, or even dissolve the enterprise altogether, that is their decision. You are not uprooting theirenterprise. They are. If we observe changes in a State’s power or activities, they are always done by members of the State. They do not happen of their own accord. - - There is no need for you, in extending your liberty rightfully, to uproot or battle the entire organization of the State. The idea is to diminish its control over the decisions you make for your life. You may join with others in that endeavor. Suppose that you are paying for defense that you don't want or need. Suppose that you associate with others who feel the same way. Your goal is toreduce the hold of the State over you in making you support something you don't want. The State’s goal is to force you to support its defense establishment. - - If your group is able to reduce the State’s impositions, even a wee bit, then you and others in that group are a wee bit more free. If the State, which may include your neighbors, allows that to happenbecause it's too costly for them to resist it, that's their choice. If you combine with a million others and find a way to reduce the defense burden on yourselves, while it remains as high or higher on those not in your group, then your liberty goes up. If these others hang together and spend what they want to or force each other to spend, that is their doing, not yours. - - A coalition like this does not preclude that you later form a coalition with some of those who opposed you on defense. You may make alliances with members of the State if it suits your purpose of extending your liberty. - - Any success in obtaining differential treatment by a State that rightfully extends the liberty of thosewho obtain the favored treatment is a victory for those who obtain the treatment that they view as better. That treatment simultaneously is the preferred action of the State. That is, faced with your group’s peaceful or rightful resistance and having made its cost-benefit calculation, the State has done the best it could for itself by giving in to your group. - - The basic idea of extending liberty (without oneself becoming a State and imposing on others) is thekey principle. It is likely to be seen by a great many people as a moral activity, since it involves no injury by invading the lives, persons, or property of others. If there is a society within a State that obtains an enterprise zone or a tax-free zone, or a society whose members need not be drafted intothe armed forces, or a society that makes its own laws, these societies are not invading members of the State. - - Members of the State may resent the differential treatment. They may accuse others of free-riding on things the State is doing. If the State elects to invade others for such reasons, the State will bear costs. (Will have to bear the costs? – JZ)  These costs will rise steeply the larger the group that is being invaded. The State’s violence will be exposed. Its actions will be baldly seen for what they are: attempts to force tribute from others. The State’s propaganda machinery will be undermined. - - These matters are at present hypothetical. We are far from such situations. We are actually in the reverse situation in which the State continually is making inroads upon the liberty of its own citizens. Those who favor liberty have not succeeded in preventing these inroads. They may do better to consider forming large coalitions that seek small extensions of liberty for themselves while leaving the rest of the State intact. Instead of David attacking Goliath, David and his host induce Goliath to make a concession. One thing may then lead to another. - - This article has benefitted from conversations with Adam Knott, but he is not responsible for its content. All errors are mine.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Panarchy: Some Foundations. It is in the December 2008 booklet "Panarchy. Essays in the new political philosophy", edited by Adam Knott and published by Luly books, pages 9-30. I do not have a URL for it on hand as yet, but do supposed that it is already online somewhere. Perhaps it can also be downloaded from Lulu Books, which offers some of its titles in this way. - I also hope that S. M. R. will himself completely assemble all his articles containing such ideas on a single site or disc. - JZ, 5.10.11, 24.7.12. - Try: Michael S. Rozeff Archives

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Reflections on the State. - Michael S. Rozeff, Reflections on the State - (2005) [English]

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., The Economics of Self-Ownership. Mises Institute, Daily Article by Michael Rozeff | Posted on 9/6/2005 Comment on the blog. - He might as well have called it the Economics, Politics and Social Relationships of Self-Ownership, since all its statements apply there as well. - De Puydt, in his essay panarchy, also started from laissez faire economics - but then applied laissez faire, laissez passer to the political and social system relationships as well. S. M. R. did not do this quite explicitly here but the application is easy for any thoughtful and unprejudiced mind. - JZ, 5.10.11.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., The State and Moral Chaos. - Michael S. Rozeff, The State and Moral Chaos - (2006) [English] - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, DICTOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Their Theories – Our Money. - Whose theories are their theories? In this case, Robert J. Shiller and George Akerlof, two economists, but Shiller in particular. Whose money? Mine and yours – ours. - Shiller published an article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Tuesday, January 27, 2009: “Animal Spirits Depend on Trust.” His conclusion is the standard statist, authoritarian, and Keynesian solution to the recession: “In due course our animal spirits will once again turn positive, but we would rather that happen this year or the next rather than five or 10 years from now. There is only one way to speed this process: greatly expand governmental support of credit markets and pass a much larger fiscal stimulus plan than is now proposed.” - I have no problem with his proposing his theory of animal spirits. As a scientist, I will entertain all sorts of hypotheses and give them my due consideration and evaluation. I have a very large problem with that theory being imposed on me. - - When one religious sect attempts to impose its beliefs on another, we rightly condemn such behavior. We believe in religious freedom. Let each sect worship in its own way. Let each leave the other alone and not interfere with them. Let there be peaceful relations. These are the prevalent and right beliefs we put into practice. - - But when one sect of economists attempts to impose its beliefs on us, we do not condemn it. We applaud it as democracy. We applaud it as the making of public policy through free speech and public debate. In this, we do not believe in political freedom. We do not believe that each political preference be expressed in its own way. We do not believe in leaving each other alone. Instead we believe in interfering with each other. Many of us run to Washington and attempt to impose our beliefs on others. - - Shiller’s theory is that the boom-bust cycle is largely driven by animal spirits. There is a resemblance of this theory to Robert Prechter’s socionomics which hearkens back to Vilfredo Pareto’s theories. There may or may not be something to these ideas. They are worth thinking about. They do not satisfy me, although some aspects are worth pursuing, but I don’t intend to evaluate them here because the larger issue is more important, which is that we are living in a system in which such theories can be legally put into practice and applied to all of us, including those of us who do not want the theory applied to us. - - Here we have an untried and untested theory being proposed by an economist of some note and notoriety. There is no evidence that his theory is correct. There is much evidence inconsistent with it. There are many things that such a theory does not explain. There are many viable competing theories. In the scientific world, research into these ideas will go on for many decades to come. We scientists will think about and research these ideas in peace. We will not be imposing them on anyone. It is certainly impetuous and premature for Shiller to declare that such a theory be put into practice. It is downright preposterous, but I fully grant him the right to display any and all of these personal characteristics. In the scientific arena, they would not matter. - - What is highly bothersome is that we accept the idea that such proposals may be enacted into legislation that will become the law of the land and apply to all of us. This is why newspapers publish such opinions. Newspapers are not scientific journals. They are part of a public discourse that ends up in legislation. - - But I ask: why are we having this discourse at all? Why should we accept it as normal? Why should many or most of us think of this as a good thing? We accept a system that denies us political freedom, and we do so in the name of freedom! - - We could do worse, I concede. We could have a Bush or an Obama unilaterally tell us what to do and order our lives in detail. Some debate is better than no debate. However, we could do a lot better. Many of us have closed our minds to doing a lot better. We have cast off the idea of peaceful political relations with one another. Having settled the matter through a Constitution and a civil war, we have accepted the idea that we must all occupy the same political boat. - - We allow ourselves peaceful (or at least more peaceful) relations in many other areas of our lives. We grant each other the freedom to worship as we choose, to travel where we choose, to dress, speak, eat, and think as we choose, to educate ourselves as we choose, to invest as we choose, and to doctor ourselves as we choose – with a proviso, which is that, having accepted a system that denies us political freedom, we are making serious inroads into many of these other once-free areas of choice. - - Why do we have religious freedom? Mankind learned through trial and error that religious warfare was a destructive waste. We learned that religious toleration pays off. Wendy McElroy has a nice article on why we have religious freedom here. [Alas, in my downloaded copy this button is not a working link. – JZ] Voltaire played an important role. France almost self-destructed with its religious wars, but commerce and the stock exchange in England encouraged people with different religious beliefs to tolerate one another. - - We should have learned by now that political freedom also pays off, and that the lack of political freedom does not pay off. We have learned that lesson but only in part. We recognize that totalitarian regimes destroy lives, but we tolerate elements of totalitarianism all the time in our ownpolitical systems; and we constantly propose and put into practice more and more of such totalitarian notions. We do not seem to realize that having a single, central, powerful national government that can enact a very wide variety of laws to be imposed on all within its reach, is totalitarian in its essence. - - One must clearly realize that we donotpossesspoliticalfreedom. Not enough of us recognize thisbasic fact. If we had political freedom, we would tolerate a variety of political entities on the soil of America. We would not have a Mother Church encompassing all of us that we call the U.S.A. We would have a multitude of communities and associations that people might build that would interweave in ways beyond central planning, just as a variety of ethnic food restaurants grows up in many cities. We would not be having a public conversation about the Shiller plan to increase our animal spirits via government action. Many of us would be ignoring Shiller altogether and acting on our own theories. Some of us would be wondering how it is that Shiller and his government compatriots escape the animal spirits that they attribute to the rest of us. What makes them the immune and superior beings who will push and pull our animal spirits for our own good? - - Nor is there political freedom around the globe. Every citizen of every nation is held hostage to oneMother Church of that nation, and there are always ongoing efforts to bring the entire world under the rule of a single supra-national governing entity. This makes nationalists very uncomfortable. These nationalists should be as uncomfortable with their own monopoly governments as they are with a world government. Both deny political freedom. - - We have been taught to think and believe that we have political freedom, because that was the dream of the framers of our Constitution or because that political system was the kernel of the American political genius. However, the historical development of a more and more powerful and centralized national government belies all such ideas as does the American civil war. - - We Americans have congratulated themselves continually since 1775 over our enlightened political arrangements. We have held them out to the world as ideals. We stopped dead in our tracks. We stopped progressing politically. We thought we had reached the pinnacle of political wisdom and could go no further. If we did not rise to the challenge of creating greater political liberty, we would retrogress and become like any Old World repressive system. We set the course away from the pole of greater liberty and toward the pole of central control. Deep in our hearts, we feared real liberty. The Constitution was a compromise and it compromised liberty. We needed to see it as the flawed document that it was. We needed to maintain a push toward greater and greater liberty, come whatmay. We needed to recognize that this would take hard work, open minds, tolerance, boldness, and courage. As great as America was, as enduring and hard-working and courageous were those who built the country, they failed. We human beings usually fail. We have to accept that so as to be prepared to do better. It is no disgrace to fail in some respects even as one succeeds marvelously inothers. Americans have succeeded greatly, and we have failed greatly. It is no disgrace to recognizewhere we have failed and now try to do better. It is a virtue. It is a great challenge. Liberty is a greatchallenge. Political freedom remains an unfinished work before us and before all the peoples of this world. It is our greatest challenge. Rockets to other planets are fine. Unraveling genes is fine. Understanding the brain is fine. But what has happened to the challenge of political liberty? Why have we relegated it worldwide to a dark corner in a dark closet in an abandoned home? Why have we boarded up the windows? Why are we afraid to peer inside? - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, AUTHORITARIANISM, INTOLERANCE, POLITICAL FREEDOM, CHOICE, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Under False Premises. - Michael S. Rozeff - Michael S. Rozeff Archives - Copyright © 2005 - A typical and relevant section of it: We will understand the logic of self-government better when we understand the illogic of the State better. Most portrayals of the State draw on at least three concepts: sovereignty, legitimacy, and territorial integrity. States are defined by legitimate sovereignty over a fixed territorial area, or a legal monopoly of violence in a fixed region. I will argue that each of these three aspects of the State is inherently illogical and self-contradictory: sovereignty or a power monopoly, legality of such a power, and legality of such a power over a fixed area. The confused disorder and insecurity that flow from these contradictions help make the State a fundamentally malignant institution, securing not the blessings of liberty and security but their opposites. - He wrote like a panarchist even before he heard or read the word panarchy and knew the first article on it by de Puydt. - An excellent article, on many points. - JZ, 5.10.11. - TERRITORIALISM, SOVEREIGNTY, MONOPOLY POWER, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SELF-GOVERNANCE

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Why Government Should Be Voluntarily Chosen. 2009. 23KBs in - Michael S. Rozeff, Why Government Should Be Voluntarily Chosen (2009) [English] - Michael S. Rozeff, Per la libera scelta del governo (2009) [Italiano] - - Note: Michael Rozeff is nowadays one of the best advocates of the idea and practice of panarchy, that is the conception of voluntary non-territorial government. In this essay he argues for that position with extraordinary clarity and vigour. If somebody is not convinced by his lucid reasoning in favour of voluntarily chosen government, quite possible it is because either the person is incapable of rational thinking or is unwilling to accept logical arguments that are likely to destroy his (state-based) status of territorial power and privilege. - GPdB.

ROZEFF, MICHAEL S., Why I Am a Panarchist, 2009, 21KBs, in - Michael S. Rozeff, Why I Am a Panarchist (2009) [English] - Michael S. Rozeff, Perché sono un panarchico (2009) [Italiano] Note: This essay is a celebration of liberty and autonomy, for everybody, everywhere. In the text, emotional pleas and rational arguments are so well interwoven that there is no way to separate or oppose them. And this is one of the strong points of panarchy; the fact that it is a philosophy (a conception) that satisfies the emotional and rational needs and aspirations of those who come to know it. That is why, after discovering its principles, many people might reach the same conclusion expressed by Michael Rozeff: I am a panarchist. - GPdB. - I consider these and other essays by M. S. R. to be real master-pieces, appealing to reason, morality and common sense and whatever there still exists of "Americanism". They are so short that, perhaps, I should include them in full, seeing that I have included other material that is not of this quality. However, it is so easy to download them and each reader of this compilation could download them and thus expand his own freedom book or title collection. - JZ, 18.9.11. – Has anyone written even more articles on panarchism, polyarchism etc. in recent times, than M. S. R? Only Gian Piero de Bellis, with his outstanding website:, may come close. – JZ, 29.1.12.

RUBIN, JERRY, Do It ! (extract) [English] (1970) – As if we were already free to do so. Alas, exterritorial autonomy for volunteers and their free experimentation, even when it comes to whole economic, social and political systems, is everywhere not impossible but still outlawed and it is certainly not easy to reduce any territorial State to its rump of its remaining volunteers, also under full exterritorial autonomy. One runs head-on against numerous popular errors, prejudices, dogmas, false assumptions and conclusions, and their consequences, all wrongfully legalized and upheld by territorial jurisdictions. – JZ, 29.1.12, 24.7.12.

RUGGIE, J. G., Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations’, International Organization 47/1 (1993) pp.139-174. - 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. - JZ, 13.10.11.

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

RULE OF LAW: The rule of law does not guarantee freedom, since general laws as well as personal edicts can be tyrannical. But increasing reliance on the rule of law clearly played a major role in transforming Western society from a world in which the ordinary citizen was literally subject to the arbitrary will of his master (*) to a world in which the ordinary citizen could regard himself as his own master.” (**) – Milton Friedman, Morality and Controls, NEW YORK TIMES, October 28, 1971. - - (*) Also largely due to territorial law, often established merely by conquest or usurpation! - (**) Even while being directly and indirectly taxed and regulated in numerous ways? - JZ, 14.5.08.

RULE: That the proletariat ought to tend, not to the establishment of a new rule or of a new class for its own profit, but to the definitive abolition of all rule, of every class, by the organization of justice, liberty, and equality for all human beings, without distinction of race, color, nationality, or faith - all to fully exercise the same duties and enjoy the same rights.” - Mikhail A. Bakunin, Address, Working People's International Association, 1867. - Capitalism and any other ism - for consenting adults! - JZ, 13.10.02. - ANARCHISM, PROLETARIAT, CLASS RULE, DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT, JUSTICE, LIBERTY, EQUALITY, DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL RIGHTS & DUTIES, PANARCHISM

RULE: The rule of law can be wiped out in one misguided, however well-intentioned, generation.” – William T. Gossett, President ABA. - The “Rule of Law” or “Law & Order” were all too often indications of a large degree of "misrule by law" and of “lawfully caused disorders.” - JZ, 23. 11. 06. - RULE OF LAW OR MISRULE OF LAW, TERRITORIALISM

RULERS: Actually, 'I have been appointed by God to rule over men,’ is not more farfetched than, ‘I have appointed myself to rule over the creative activities of citizens.’ Both are nonsensical. The teacher, clergyman, businessmen, labor union official, or politician who advocates or practices coercive interferences with the peaceful exchanges of creative human energy has a position no more tenable than that proclaimed by James I or Prussian sovereigns. It is the king syndrome in either case.” - Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.36/7. - TERRITORIALISM

RULERS: all along rulers have tended to resort to any and all means to subjugate their nationals and those of neighboring countries.” - Kevork Ajemian, The Fallacy of Modern Politics, Books International, PO Box 6096, McLean, Virginia 22106, 1986, Tel. (703) 821-8900, p.44. - POLITICIANS, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS

RULERS: All of this comes clear when we analyze the back-seat car driver - a personal, intimate situation - substituting his guidance for a relatively simple operation in which only a few faculties are employed. Consider, then, the far greater hazard of inflicting your views on people unknown to you, in an operation as big as the destiny of man, attempting to alter the conglomeration of faculties in each of millions of persons, faculties which you cannot even identify by name, much less understand. The social back-seat driver by his remote, impersonal intrusions, is incalculably more absurd than is the back-seat driver in a car with his intimate, personal intrusions!” - Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.36/7. – One of the positive signs of the ties is that all his books and all the issues of THE FREEMAN by FEE are now online and downloadable! – JZ, 24.7.12. – LEONARD E. READ, TERRITORIALISM, LEGISLATION, CONTROLS, CENTRALIZATION

RULERS: any form of rulership is bound to rebound to the detriment of the ruled.” – Laurence Labadie, LIBERTY, Summer 1974. - Rulers ruling only exterritorially over their own volunteers should be distinguished from those, who territorially rule also over all kinds of peaceful dissenters. - JZ, 22.4.11.

RULERS: As to the rulers’ saying that, if it were not for their power, the worse would do violence to the good, it means only this, that the violators in power do not wish to cede this power to other violators, who may with to take it from them.” – Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You. – They just do not want to leave it to individual to choose the lesser evil – or no evil at all – for themselves. – JZ, 23.6.93. - Or, under the pretence of genuine self government and representative government, they want to take the right and power of genuine self-government away from you. Moreover, they do not grant you an individual choice between various governments and societies but merely a collective one, provided you are part of a territorial majority. – JZ, 12.5.08. - TERRITORIALISM

RULERS: Can the cats wisely and judiciously legislate for the mice?” – John Bright, 1852. – Q.

RULERS: Democracy is no different, though it is something more. It insists on the principle that the ruler is also ruled, that he who is responsible for us is also responsible to us. Democracy demands that rulers educate citizens, that they reduce to a minimum the difference between custom and reality, that to the greatest possible extent rulers help us to be kings, knowing the why as well as the what of political decision.” - Wilson Carey McWilliams in The Right to Know, ed. by William J. Barnds. – Those so immoral to strive for power and so stupid that they believe that they could rule millions better than the millions could rule themselves, are here expected to “educate” citizens towards genuine self-government, i.e., to make themselves superfluous as rulers. – That is an even worse chimerical utopia than that of colonialism, “the white man’s burden”, “limited but still territorial governments” and the “Welfare State”, which is often a Warfare State. - JZ, 25.9.08, 24.7.12. – DEMOCRACY, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, EDUCATION, POLITICIANS, POWER-MONGERS, LEADERSHIP

RULERS: Discard manmade rules! - after: “... man-made rules had been discarded." - Boris Pasternak, Dr. Zhivago, Fontana pocketbook edition, p.130. – Only territorially imposed rules should be discarded. Those made by volunteers for themselves should be freely experimented with, by their voluntary victims or beneficiaries. – JZ, 30.3.09.

RULERS: Even in supposedly representative democratic countries the subjects have more in common with the subjects in other countries than with their own rulers. And the territorial rules of all countries, whether dictators or elected presidents, have more in common with each other than with their subjects, even when they [through their victims, their subjects] are fighting each other, like the totalitarian Hitler regime did, fighting the totalitarian Stalin regime. It is high time for the populations themselves to conclude a separate peace between themselves and over the heads of their rulers, who led and lead them into one war after the other. This kind of abuse is so great that millions are slaughtered without the governments even bothering to declare quite rightful war and peace aims. – Actually, they could not do this, since, as territorial governments, they do not have any. – JZ, 4.1.08. - GOVERNMENTS VS. SUBJECTS & CITIZENS, WARS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR PEACE, INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AS A GOVERNMENTAL MONOPOLY & ABUSE, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, WAR & PEACE AIMS

RULERS: Every imaginable kind of living Authority has been tried, and is still being tried somewhere on earth now. - - All these kinds have been tried, too, in every possible combination; the priest and the king, the king who is the priest, the king who is God, the king and a senate, the king and the senate and a majority, the senate and a tyrant, the tyrant and the aristocrats, a king and a parliament - Try to think of a combination; somewhere it has been tried. - - In 1920 the Albanians tried four quarter-kings and aristocrats and a parliament. The Bedouin of Iraq today combine a tyrant and a majority. The Emir has absolute power of life and death; he owns all property, dictates all marriages, makes all treaties and raids and wars; if he makes one decision that the tribe does not approve, his subjects kill him and give another man his job. This works all right, too; except that the Bedouin do not get enough to eat. - - Each of these kinds of living Authority, and every one of the combinations, has worked all right, except that its subjects did not get enough to eat.” - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.16. - By now many of us do get more than enough to eat, so that we do even get obese, if we are not careful with our diet. However, we do not get enough rights and liberties under the remaining "benevolent" territorial despotism even of democracies and republics. - JZ, 24.2.11. – STATE, GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, WELFARE STATES, POLITICIANS

RULERS: Fire, water, storms, robbers, rulers - these are the five great evils.” - Burmese saying, quoted by H. Fielding Hall, The Soul of a People.

RULERS: For we have to face the fact that we have a permanent battle with our own rulers, for life and liberty, on our hands; …” - Edward Hyams: Killing no Murder, p. 31. - Once we are free to secede from them we do no longer have to resist or to fight them. – JZ, 18.5.08. - – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY


RULERS: God did not place the crown on the head of kings for any other reason than to assure men their lives, the liberty of their person, and the tranquil possession of their goods.” – Lamoignon de Malesherbes, 1770. – Quoted in Kelly, “The Political Thought of Lamoignon de Malesherbes”, POLITICAL THEORY, Nov. 1979, p.497. – Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.191. - Was God really a monarchist rather than a republican, democrat, libertarian or anarchist? By what signs can we recognize his political preferences? - Was God so foolish or badly informed to believe that any territorial rulers would be up to that job? When and where have they ever achieved that? Should an all-knowing God be unaware of their numerous and prolonged failures? – JZ, 2.10.07. – And of his or her own? – J.Z., 25.7.12. - LIBERTY, PROPERTY & GOD

RULERS: Government can be turned from offender to defender only as it is confined to codifying the taboos and enforcing them, to invoking a common justice, in a word, to keeping the peace - the role of servant. Its present role as general manager of 200 million people and their economy, its assumed and irrational role as dispenser of welfare, security, and prosperity, has to be abolished. - - That this is ideological revolution (reversal of the mores), an affront to those currently in the seats of power, and seemingly impossible of accomplishment is conceded. But it's this, or pollution; it's this, or national downfall. - - However, the job isn't as impossible as it seems. Could you personally run the nation or the world? Of course not! Then draw a perfectly obvious conclusion: Neither can anyone else. The turnabout requires little more than a general recognition of this simple fact and an understanding of how freedom works its wonders.” - Leonard E. Read: Let Freedom Reign, p.8. - Alas, Read has not yet drawn one alternative conclusion, to promote his kind of ideal and limited government and the hundreds of other kinds of ideal and limited kinds of governments and of free societies and communities of volunteers and the thousands or more or less paternalistic or statist governments that are desired by some, all at the same time and all by volunteers only, on an exterritorial and personal law basis. This is most likely the fastest way for limited government advocates and anarchy advocates to realize their own dreams or individual free choices. For this method of realization would also be the fastest road to realize all other dreams on government, mini-government and no-government. On these simple practices and principles one could hope to reach agreement - a more comprehensive agreement than exists now regarding territorial governments, whose failures we have now observed and suffered under for thousands of years. Moreover, only the individual secessionist and exterritorial autonomy approach offers a way out of the nuclear dilemma, foremost by eliminating its targets. - - We find ourselves in the same position the different sects are in now. While they go on proselytizing in order to gain followers and conquer their market, none of them has any great chance of persuading all others, even if the salvation of man depended upon the general acceptance of one of them. But, at the same time, each of them has the chance for maximum growth under religious liberty or tolerance. This is a rightful and, obviously, a practicable approach. To the extent that it has ever been realized, at least partly and temporarily in the world, it has created peaceful relationships between members of different religions, apart from some comparatively trivial squabbles, or those linked to political and territorial monopoly claims. Thus this is the way to advocate all kinds of libertarianism, too. On this basis libertarians can become the allies of almost all other groups and movements: Exterritorial autonomy and self-rule for all volunteer groups, everywhere. With such a program wars can be ended fast or won fast, and revolutions could become victorious and almost bloodless against dictatorial regimes. For me this solution has become so obvious the blindness of others towards it has become almost incomprehensible to me. Let 1000 flowers bloom, all by their own efforts, let each cultivate his own garden, run his own household, his own life, his own associations, his own communities, his own world, as he pleases, together with like-minded volunteers, at his own risk and expense. Experimental freedom, on a personal law basis, in the political, economic and social sphere, in the same way as we had it, for hundreds of years in some instances, in the religious sphere. - - Those who do not want to proceed in this direction without reference to historical precedents, will also find these to be quite numerous, if they keep looking for them… - JZ, 22.10.82, 24.2.11. – PANARCHISM, RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, POWER, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE

RULERS: governments in all its forms – whether it be that of the one, the few, or the many. In each there must, of necessity, be a governing and a governed – a ruling and a subject portion. The one implies the other; and in all, the two bear the sale relation to each other - and have, on the part of the governing portion, the same tendency to oppression and abuse of power.” - John C. Calhoun, A Disquisition on Government, C. G. Post edition, p.19. – A majority of voters supporting wrongful decisions by territorial governments, can be just as guilty as their governmental representatives. The term self-government is much abused by the territorialists but it can have a real meaning among volunteers, especially those, which insist upon unanimous decision-making. Even many otherwise primitive people avoided the territorial and majoritarian political trap and claptrap. Members of communities of volunteers can have all kinds of systems and institutions to settle any remaining disagreements between them and arriving at decisions – which are not binding upon those who make use of their right to secede, to stay neutral, to do their own things. The verbal and practical split between rulers and ruled can almost disappear in such associations, coming close to genuine self-government and self-management, almost as close as voluntary and sovereign consumers are in a free market for private and public goods and services. – JZ, 1.10.07. - & RULED, SUBJECTS, SERFS, FEUDALISM, TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS VS. FREE SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES, SELF-GOVERNANCE

RULERS: I don't think anybody should rule.” - Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus III, p.145. – Everybody, as far as he wants to, should only rule himself. If he wants to rule others then his rule should be confined to volunteers. – JZ, 30.3.09.

RULERS: I gave them the best psychotherapy man had ever imagined and left them without a desire to rule.” – Dean R. Koontz, A Darkness in my Soul, Daw Book, N.Y., 1972, p.117. – Or with only the satisfaction of ruling only over voluntary followers. – JZ, 25.6.89, 24.2.11.

RULERS: I merely wish to point out that this impulse to rule the lives of others, whether spouse or progeny or neighbors or countrymen, originates in and is a form of blindness. These people believe, quite sincerely, that were they to reign everyone would be better off. They are would-be authoritarians because they don't know any better.” - L. E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.140. – POLITICIANS, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, IGNORANCE, KNOWLEDGE, PREJUDICE

RULERS: I never would believe that Providence had sent a few men into the world, ready booted and spurred to ride, and millions ready saddled and bridled to be ridden.” – Statement of Richard Rumbold, on scaffold before being hung for rebellion in 1685. – Quoted in Macaulay’s History of England, 1685, 5. - RESISTANCE, REBELLION

RULERS: If man is evil then what makes rulers good? – JZ, 2.11.96. – Do the votes of bad men elect good rulers? - GOOD, EVIL, MAN, HUMAN NATURE, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, Q., VOTING, REPRESENTATIVES

RULERS: If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us is capable of governing someone else?" - Ronald Reagan. – So what was he doing in office? – JZ, 2.1.08. - GOVERNMENTS, SELF-GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE, PRESIDENTS

RULERS: If one considers the dishonesties of small men and the robberies of the great ones, then one is tempted to consider the whole of society to be a forest filled with thieves and robbers. Those appointed to control them are the worst ones.“ – Nicolas Chamfort, Aphorismen, p.69. – JZ tr. of: “Betrachtet man sich manchmal die Spitzbuebereien der Kleinen und die Raeubereien der Grossen, so ist man versucht die Gesellschaft fuer einen Walt voller Buschkleppper zu halten. Die Haescher, welche die Bande im Zaume halten sollten, sind die allerschlimmsten.“ – Actually, we cannot all make a living merely from stealing and robbing each other. Productive, enough and helpless victims are presupposed. – Why blame society when only lack of sound principles and territorial powers and abuses are involved? – JZ, 12.5.08. - PEOPLE, ROBBERIES, DISHONESTY, SOCIETY, MAN, DIS., Q.

RULERS: If you have a government it will bring you into difficulties.” – Atmen Yogi, 11/86. – JZ tr. of: “Wenn Du ‘ne Regierung hast die bringt Dich dann in Schwierigkeiten.” – Different panarchies for those, who see enemies and those who see protectors in governments! – Panarchies for all kinds of freedom lovers and panarchies for all kinds of statists! - JZ, 18.5.07. - LAWS, GOVERNMENTS, VOLUNTARISM

RULERS: In the light of the attempts by rulers throughout history, and especially in the twentieth century, to enforce their own values upon the citizens at the point of a gun, Will’s refusal to address the question of quis custodiet custodies is irresponsible.” - Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.310. - - Alas, J. F. J. only recommends constitutional restraints, checks and balances, not individual and group secessionism, nor ideal militia forces, nor a much better bill of rights than the constitutional amendments to the USA constitution, nor full monetary and financial freedom, nor the replacement of compulsory territorialism by exterritorialism for volunteers. – Everything good comes only rarely together, according to an old proverb. - JZ, 2.10.07. JZ, 24.2.11, 25.7.12. - POWER & ARMED FORCES OF THE STATE, WHO GUARDS THE GUARDIANS? MILITIA, TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

RULERS: Intelligent life rules other life. (*) But it is not the destiny of intelligent life to rule intelligent life. The destiny of intelligent life is not to be ruled.” – Barry B. Longyear, Manifest Destiny, p.187. - Another version: Intelligent life rules other life. But it is not the destiny of intelligent life to rule intelligent life. The destiny of intelligent life is not to be ruled. As creatures of choice, it is our nature to be free to choose. Rule is existence by the choice of others as instinct is existence by the choice of nature.” - Barry B. Longyear, Savage Planet, ANALOG, Feb. 80, p.29. - (*) Except among humans, within territorial regimes. – JZ, 9.5.08. There the worst do get to the top and stay there for all too long, as Hayek pointed out. – J.Z., 25.7.12. – Actually, there it is not destiny but merely the results of very foolish or prejudiced choices, decisions, laws and their institutions, which take even territorialism for granted, although it is a wrongful and unnatural, irrational as well as coercive imposition. - JZ, 24.2.11, 25.7.12. - INTELLIGENCE, LIFE, TERRITORIALISM

RULERS: It is high time that the race of man recognize that many, perhaps most, of its rulers have been mad. The course of events charted by these psychotics in power has been a dirty, cruel, bloody road along with men, essentially decent men, have been led to horrible suffering, starvation and pointless, premature deaths.” – Russell V. Lee, MD, The Menace of Madness in High Places, Foreword, Palo Alto, 1977. – TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, WARFARE STATES

RULERS: Let everyone escape from a rule he doesn't like and let him make his own alternative arrangements - anywhere. - JZ, 16.7.79. - I mean: At his own expense and risk! – JZ, n.d. – PANARCHISM

RULERS: Let me rule myself according to my own opinion. - JZ, 28.8.75. - All others should be free to do the same. Either alone or together with like-minded other volunteers, as long as they do not claim a territorial monopoly. - JZ, 24.2.11.

RULERS: Little by little, the pimps have taken over the world. They don’t do anything, they don’t make anything – they just stand there and take their cut.” – Jean Giraudoux, The Madwoman of Chaillot, 1945, I., adapted by Maurice Valency. - Should we forget about their wrongful, enforced and monopolized decision-making power, all too often abused? If they did not do anything - that would be wonderful. Then we could simply ignore them. – JZ, 13.5.08. - GOVERNMENTS, REPRESENTATIVES, LEADERSHIP, DECISION-MAKING, POLITICIANS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS ETC., PIMPS, TERRITORIALISM

RULERS: No individual and no class is wise enough and unselfish enough to decide the destiny of an intelligent people.” - G. P. Gooch, Dictatorship in Theory and Practice, p.48. - Where can one find only intelligent people occupying an entire country? However, even fools have the right to submit to any regime that they are foolish enough to like and submit to. - JZ, 24.2.11, 25.7.12.

RULERS: No one ought to rule.” - Miller Upton, THE FREEMAN, 9/74. - Except exterritorially and only over his kind of volunteers. - JZ, 24.2.11.

RULERS: No person shall rule over me with my consent. I will rule over no man.” - W. L. Garrison.

RULERS: Old people are dangerous. They do not care what will become of the world.” – G. B. Shaw. – Only a JZ tr. of the German version: “Alte Leute sind gefaehrlich. Es ist ihnen einerlei, was aus der Welt wird.” -  or even of themselves Something similar could be said on young people: They do not yet sufficiently care what becomes of the world and thus all too often risk their own lives and health and that of others. Anyhow, even if they did, they are less likely than some older people to be able to do something about this. On the other hand, older people do usually have children and grandchildren and thus do care about the future. But the older people, in territorial government, were all too often all too ready to throw away the lives of younger people in their power addiction and monopolistic decision-making on war and peace, with most wars likely to be fought mainly by young people. They are also all too ready to ignore the ideas and advice of other old people, without power, who are mature and responsible, but are, under territorialism, reduced to the merely territorial subjects. – JZ, 12.5.08, 25.7.12. – DIS.

RULERS: only those who have the will and the power to shoot down their fellow men, are the real rulers in this, as in all other (so called) civilized countries; for by no others will civilized men be robbed, or enslaved.” – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, Works I. - Where and how can one find people, who are already sufficiently civilized? - Probably only under full exterritorial autonomy for experimental freedom among volunteers would they come "out of the woodwork". - JZ, 24.2.11. – Q., CIVILIZATION

RULERS: Our rulers are insane, judging e.g. by their accumulation of ABC mass murder devices, their “over-kill” potential, by which they could kill every human being several times, if that were possible. But then what are we, if we continue to obey and admire them? – JZ, 1.7.82. – Even if they never intentionally used these devices, keeping them makes accidental nuclear war possible. – JZ, 9.5.08. - NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, MASS MURDER DEVICES, POWER-MADNESS, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, INSANITY, MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION: MAD, Q.

RULERS: Our rulers are the barbarians among us. There isn’t one of them … who is devoted to civilization or anything else outside himself, and that’s the mark of the barbarian.” – H. Beam Piper, Space Viking, p.192. - However, aren't their voluntary subjects, who do not even question their territorial rule and decision-making powers, including taxation and war-making powers and monetary despotism, even more primitive and less interested in their own rights, liberties and interests? - JZ, 24.2.11.

RULERS: quit and leave the country ...” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p.1007. - Although this book deals with the individual secession or rather retreatism of individual Atlas types of productive leaders, A. R. did not advocate individual secessionism and exterritorial reorganization on a voluntary and autonomous basis. - She would not have given the same advice to subjects of a former exclusive and hierarchical priesthood ruling the country. Why didn't she extend her tolerance from religion to politics, societal relationships and all economic systems that some people prefer for themselves? - JZ, 22.10.82, 25.7.12.

RULERS: Rather than pick rulers – pickle them.” – JZ, 23.4.93. – Naturally, I am only “joking”. They would not be to my taste. What I do really recommend is: To each and everyone only the ruler or free society of his or her own individual choice. – JZ, 12.5.08, 24.2.11. – JOKES, VOTING, REPRESENTATION, GOVERNMENTS

RULERS: Rulers are made to protect, not restrict.” - Anne McCaffrey, Decision at Doona, p.93. – But do territorial rulers protect our rights and liberties more than they attack and suppress them? They do not even allow us to secede from them or to peacefully and productively compete with them. – JZ, 25.9.08. – Q.

RULERS: Rulers strain and connive to keep their victims unenlightened, happy with barbarism, in fear of the civilization which would restrict the rulers’ power.” – W. L. Thompson, Ghost Dance, in ANALOG 2/89, p. 166. - Unbelievable as it sounds, the present despotic government of Burma does even keep most foreign aid offers away from masses of current earthquake victims among its subjects. Is there any crime, which some rulers are too ashamed to commit? – JZ, 18.5.08. – The same happened recently after a great earthquake in China. Saving face seems to be more important to some than saving lives. – JZ, 22.10.08. – POLITICIANS, LEADERSHIP, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM

RULERS: Society can less and less afford to be governed by imbeciles or even by charlatans of genius … These monsters will end up by making such a mess that we shall all suffer.” – Aldous Huxley, in Sybille Bedford, Aldous Huxley: A Biography, I, 1894-1939, p.142. – This is hardly avoidable while territorial States are allowed to be continued. – Confined to volunteers the power and influence of these monsters will be minimized, judged by the number of their voluntary victims and the period that they will be able to rule, when faced with the competition from members of free, just, prosperous and progressive societies - right next door. – JZ, 18.5.08. - PANARCHISM

RULERS: Territorial governmental rules and rulers are not suitable, straight and representative enough for the great variety of their subjects. Only volunteers can come to an agreement on rules and rulers suitable for themselves, for the time being, at their stage of enlightenment. – JZ, 5.4.99, 10.5.08. – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, LAWS, REGULATIONS, CONSENT, REPRESENTATION

RULERS: Territorial rulers do, at least sooner or later and almost inevitably, fight, like gangsters, for what they consider to be their turf and their subjects. And we tend to be foolish enough to act as killers and as victims for them. Organized criminals do not as often and as extensively involve innocents or noncombatants in their struggles for supremacy and do not kill as many of the soldiers of their enemies and, indirectly, of their own, as territorial governments do. Nevertheless, the ordinary gangsters still got a worse reputation in public opinion than their larger, official and legalized competitors. – As if legalization could make robberies, exploitation, suppression and mass murders right. - JZ, 15.6.92, 12.5.08, 25.7.12. - CRIME, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, PRIVATE MURDERS VS. WAR VICTIMS & OTHER OFFICIAL MASS MURDERS

RULERS: The enlightened and rationally acting ruler, as imagined by Machiavelli, has never existed in reality.” – E. Krippendorff, Staat und Krieg, S.254. – Under territorial conditions they cannot act quite morally and rationally! – JZ, 11.5.08. - It is much easier to act upon the beliefs of like-minded volunteers, to the extent that these are practicable at all. - JZ, 24.2.11. - GOVERNMENTS, STATES

RULERS: The essence of the State through history is a minority of the population, constituting a power elite or a 'ruling class’, governing and living off the majority, or the ‘ruled’. Since a majority cannot live parasitically off a minority without the economy and the social system breaking down very quickly, and since the majority can never act permanently by itself but must always be led by an oligarchy, every State will subsist by plundering the majority on behalf of a ruling minority.” – Murray N. Rothbard, "REASON", 7/76. - True for most territorial States only. - JZ, 24.2.11.

RULERS: the natural impulse of rulers is to rule as many as ruthlessly as they can get away with.” – Leon Louw, FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS, Dec./Jan. 94/95. – Naturally, this applies only to territorial rulers, not the rulers or executive managers of communities of volunteers. – JZ, 9.5.08.

RULERS: The rulers are always a minority.” - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, p.50. – The title is misleading: It should rather have been: Governments believing themselves to be or believed to be omnipotent are, rather, impotent in numerous ways. In this and many other books, articles and speeches Mises proved that. Nevertheless, he stuck with the model of a supposedly ideal but still territorial “limited” government. – JZ, 25.9.08

RULERS: The stupidity, ignorance and prejudices of the rules are only exceeded by those of most subjects. – JZ 13.12.87. – That would become somewhat bearable only once the somewhat enlightened and the wise are free to opt out and to rule or manage their own affairs, quite independently, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. Then their successful free experiments would spread, at least gradually. – JZ, 18.5.08. The others would greatly shrink or disappear altogether, just like failed businesses.

RULERS: the world is full of decent folks ... who are capable of running their own lives, and would do it quite well if circumstances required them to try.” - Jim Stumm, quoted in LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION, 31.2.74. – For freedom lovers the qualification should rather run: “if circumstances, laws and territorial institutions  allowed them to try.” – JZ, 26.9.08, 30.3.09. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM

RULERS: There are two kinds of people – those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group, there is less competition there.” – Indira Gandhi. - Let us introduce full competition for politicians, too, by confining them to voluntary members in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. Then they will have to begin to work to realize their seriously meant, practicable and rightful promises. Then they could do so relatively easily, based on genuine mandates, almost unanimous consent and full experimental freedom for their volunteers. But first they would have to work hard to attain a genuine knowledge how rights, liberties and duties work in a free market system. They could then no longer merely spout popular prejudices and slogans and forget about their promises, once in power. They would have to deliver, make good their words, or lose their jobs, without having anyone else to blame but themselves. - JZ, 23. 11. 06, 25.7.12. - POLITICIANS, LEADERS, WORKERS, PEOPLE & PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, COMPETITION

RULERS: There is no State in Europe where the least wise have not governed the most wise.” – Landor, quoted in a desktop calendar. Compare Hayek’s chapter in “The Road to Serfdom” on how the worst get to the top. – Wisdom is only very rarely and incompletely found at the top. – Wise men get their best chances only among like-minded volunteers not in more or less accidentally thrown together masses or mobs. - JZ, 9.5.08. – GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, PRINCIPLES, MORALITY, ETHICS, RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

RULERS: To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied upon, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue. To be governed means to be, at each operation, at each transaction, at each movement, noted, registered, controlled, taxed, stamped, measured, valued, assessed, patented, licensed, authorized, endorsed, admonished, hampered, reformed, rebuked, arrested. It is to be, on the pretext of the general interest, taxed, drilled, held to ransom, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the least resistance, at the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, abused, annoyed, followed, bullied, beaten, disarmed, garroted, imprisoned, machine-gunned, judged, condemned, deported, flayed, sold, betrayed and finally mocked, ridiculed, insulted, dishonored. Such is government, such is justice, such is morality.” - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 1851. - Such tends to be the justice and morality of coercive and territorial governments. Thus I would qualify the above statement. - JZ, 22.10.82, 24.2.11. – GOVERNMENT, STATE, TERRITORIALISM, POWER, SUBJECTS, CITIZENS, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, HUMAN RIGHTS, POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRACY, LEADERSHIP, POLITICS

RULERS: We are cursed with false magicians, who have excess powers, territorial ones, to fool around with and threaten us. - JZ, 10.2.77, 24.2.11.

RULERS: We are ruled by criminals with victims. However, they have mostly legalized their crimes and pretend that they are for our own good and are so successful liars and deceivers, that most people go on voting for them! – At least all of them should be confined to their voluntary victims. – No longer any territorial monopolies for them, any exclusive “turf”. - JZ, 3.1.97, 10.5.08. - GOVERNMENTS, CRIMINALS, LAWS, VICTIMIZATION, POLITICIANS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, REPRESENTATIVES, TERRITORIALISM, VOTING

RULERS: We are the real rulers. And we are omnipotent in that role. (*) If the government pours quantities of hot new money into the economy, we promptly discount its value, demanding higher prices and wages in compensation. If the government decrees wage and price controls, we simply withdraw our goods and services from the marketplace. If goods and services we want are made illegal (victimless crimes), black (free) markets soon appear to supply them. If taxes become oppressive, we at first find ways to avoid them, and finally we refuse to pay them entirely. If this means revolution, and a new order, then we accept that as the best of the choices still open to us. We rapidly adjust to every factor which affects our well-being.” – René Baxter, FREEDOM TODAY, Sept. 1975, p.5. - (*) Potentially, yes. But actually and already, immediately? No! - Do we really rule our own affairs already more effectively than they do? Is their territorial rule over us entirely harmless to us? Then why agitate so much for freedom and rights, when they are already fully within our knowledge and our reach? – JZ, 9.5.08, 24.2.11. – Q.

RULERS: We want our rulers to be quarterbacks rather than merely referees.” – Doug Newman - They are not much good as referees, either. They are good enough only for those volunteers who are ignorant, or stupid or prejudiced enough to be willing to follow them. - JZ, 24. 11. 06. - POLITICIANS, GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHIES, VOLUNTARISM

RULERS: We've been saying, more and more often, you must work with others, you must accept the rule of the majority. But any rule is tyranny. The duty of the individual is to accept no rule, to be the initiator of his own acts, to be responsible. Only if he does so will the society live, and change, and adapt, and survive..." - Ursula Le Guin, The Dispossessed, p.296. - Any territorial rule is tyranny! – JZ, 30.3.09. – SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SOCIETY, TERRITORIALISM, TYRANNY

RULERS: Who rules the world? You do, Your world, that is.” - Harry Brown, How I Found Freedom. – And what fraction of the world, that we should be free to rule ourselves, are we at present free to rule or manage ourselves? Word-plays cannot change facts, unless they lead to liberating actions. – JZ, 25.9.08. – TERRITORIALISM, CENTRALIZATION OF POWER & DECISION-MAKING

RULERS: You can’t rule and be nice. Try to be nice and everyone thinks you’re either weak or a liar.” - Phillip Mann, Master of Paxwax, p.82. - What is true for territorial domination situations is not applicable to societies and communities of like-minded volunteers. – JZ, 19.9.07. - DOMINATION, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, NICETY, STRENGTH, RULE BY FEAR OF PUNISHMENTS

RULERS: You deserve only those rulers whom you voted for, not those, whom you voted against. The rulers you voted for deserve to rule only over your own servility towards them, as long as you are, individually, prepared to put up with them. Under voluntary State membership and personal laws or full exterritorial autonomy this becomes not only rightful but practicable. To each his own. – JZ, 9.4.93, 12.5.08. – VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAWS

RULES: About rule, … About choosing rules or having them chosen for you, that’s what were arguing about. ...” - Martin Woodhouse, Rock Baby, Pan Books, London, 1970, p.14. - & LAWS, CHOSEN FOR YOU OR BY YOU, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

RULES: Any fool can make a rule and every fool will mind it.” – Henry David Thoreau – Any fool can make a rule, and every fool will mind it.” – Cousin Woodman. – Rather: Every fool can make a rule but only fools will abide by it. – J.Z., 25.7.12. - As if there could not also be sensible rules like e.g.: Don’t try to swim across the English Channel when all you can do is to swim, perhaps, a mile or for an hour. – Don’t play around with high explosives! – Don’t construct and keep nuclear weapons when there is no enemy against whom you could quite rightfully use them. - Only great fools would ignore such rules. – But then great fools are everywhere territorially in charge, pretending and widely believed to be wise men. - Bismarck at least confessed that he had to sign 3/4 ‘s of “his” letters quite unread by him, relying on his staff. - JZ, 9.5.08. – REGULATIONS, LAWS, LEADERSHIP, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS

RULES: Every wise man will object to the rules made by fools, unless the fools do make them only for their own affairs. - JZ, 22. 11. 06, 30.3.09, 25.7.12. – OFFICIAL RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS

RULES: The rules are all written by others.” – Buckminster Fuller. – Let people develop and apply their own rules for their own lives but never let them apply their rules to the lives of dissenting others. – JZ, 9.5.08. – LAWS, PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT ACTIONS, DISSENTERS,  EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL WHO DESIRE IT.

RULES: We have to go by the rules.” – “Rules are rules”. “Orders are orders”. “The law is the law.” – Freedom to act in accordance with our own rules, in all our own affairs and freedom to ignore the rules enacted and so far enforced by others, not freely chosen by ourselves, individually, or passed and enforced among associated individuals for their purposes, in their own interests and at their own expense and risk. The only universally valid rules – to the extent that they are appreciated and wanted by volunteers, in their communities - are individual rights and liberties. The rest is, objectively, junk and of subjective value only to voluntary subscribers, in form of their personal laws. – JZ, 19.8.03, 18.10.07. - LAWS, REGULATIONS, DIS.

RUNNING A COUNTRY: A captain may know well enough how to run a ship, a business man may know enough to run his own business successfully – a tradesman may know his own trade well enough – but certainly not the trades of all others well enough to lay down the rules for them. Certainly, no one knows enough to run a whole country and all of its population. – If he tried, he would act like an elephant in a china store. - JZ, 9.5.08. - TERRITORIALISM

RUNNING A COUNTRY: A country does not have to be run. It just sits there, apart from earthquakes and gradual erosion. And running people should be confined to voluntary participants e.g. in foot races. Running a single life or a single enterprise successfully is difficult enough and there are many failures in these attempts. Running a whole country and all its people, more successful than free people could run their own affairs and their own lives, is quite impossible for human beings, who are obviously not gods. All those offering themselves for such “jobs” do, obviously, not agree with each other. Otherwise all countries would have only one party, instead of dozens to hundreds under some degrees of freedom. And no party does or can sufficiently satisfy all the voters, because, sooner or later, it is voted out of office and another set of all too promising rascals is voted in, all too hopefully and expectantly. Moreover, is any politician or bureaucrat really a good runner? Perhaps we would only find out when we finally get around to chase him out of his office. – JZ, 23.11.93, 11.5.08, 25.7.12. - JOKES

RUNNING A COUNTRY: Anyone with a modicum of wisdom realizes the absurdity of running the lives of others. No one knows perfectly how to run his or her own life.” – Leonard E. Read, How Do We Know? p.97. - TERRITORIALISM

RUNNING A COUNTRY: If you think that you must run a country - run your own, not mine or that of any other dissenter. - JZ, 3.6.84. - You have no right to usurp and maintain rule over a whole country and all its people, not even if you have the majority on your side. You would need the consent of every peaceful individual to rule over him or to practise with him the society of your choice. - JZ, 15.11.02. - & PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM VS. VOLUNTARISM & INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM

RUNNING A COUNTRY: Running one’s own life successfully is difficult enough and almost a full-time occupation. To imagine that one would be able to also run the lives of millions of people - and this more successfully than they could run it themselves - is a kind of madness and such madmen should certainly not be given any territorial power over peaceful dissenters. – JZ, 9.5.08. – RULERS, POLITICIANS, PRESIDENTS, POWER-MADNESS

RUNNING A COUNTRY: Territorial governments will not and cannot run any country anywhere except into reefs or shoals or to the bottom of the sea. – JZ, 23.4.89. - Thoughts of “good governments” or “limited governments” or “representative governments are still merely wishful dreams. All such dreamers should be confined to be ruled by the kinds of government they dreamed up, as long as they can stand them, while all other people should be left alone by them. – When each gets only the government or society that he dreamt about and chose for himself, no one will have good cause to complain when he is disappointed by it. Moreover, then he will be free to secede from it. – JZ, 18.5.08. – The government is not running the country – it is running it down! – JZ, 17.8.76.

RUNNING A COUNTRY: Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.” – Will Rogers. - Most public servants can't even run a good computer properly. And for centuries they have messed up even something as relatively simple as postal services. The government, the country, the people: they are all abstract monstrosities and generalities, without reason, without mind, without hands, without morality. - It needs their supposed political representatives to really run down the conditions in a country for most people. JZ, 22. 11. 06. - INDIVIDUALISTIC & VOLUNTARISTIC MANAGEMENT RUNS ALL THINGS MUCH BETTER THAN MOST TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS COULD

RUNNING A COUNTRY: Well, who’s running the country? Why, nobody, that’s why things are kinder picking up.” – Will Rogers. – JOKES, GOVERNMENTS, RULERS

RUNNING A COUNTRY: Why should either the unions or the government run the country? Why should not, instead, every Australian be free to run his own life and do what he likes with whatever is his? – JZ, 75.

RUSHBROOK WILLIAMS, L.F.: Der Staat Israel, Fischer Buecherei, 1959. English original title: The State of Israel, S. 54: "Obgleich die Juden - wie auch andere Bewohner Palaestinas - die von der Mandatsregierung eingefuehrten Steuern fuer die allgemeine Wohlfahrt bezahlten, hatten sie ihr eignes soziales Wohlfahrtswesen gegruended und finanziert. Sie hatten ihr eigenes System fuer Elementar-, hoehere, technische und Hochschulen, welches in der beruehmten Hebraeischen Universitaet von Jerusalem gipfelte. Sie hatten ihren eigenen Gesundheitsdienst mit seinen zwei Haupttraegern, der medizinischen Organisation Hassadah Histadruth, und der Arbeiterkrankenkasse Kupat Cholim, in welchen die Histadruth, der Allgemeine Gewerkschaftsbund, die juedische arbeitende Bevoelkerung in einem grossangelegten Krankenversicherungsplan zusammengefasst hatte. Histadruth hielt ausserdem in einer einzigen, demokratisch kontrollierten Organisation die Kollektiv- und Genossenschaftssiedlungen, die Gewerkschaften der Bueroangestellten, der Arbeiterinnen, der Arbeiterjugend, der Eisenbahn, Post- und Telegrafenarbeiter und viele andere zusammen. Ausserdem ueberwachte sie eine grosse Anzahl anderer Fonds und Hilfsorganisationen auf Gegenseitigkeit. Darueber hinaus lancierte sie, sozusagen auf eigene Faust, viele grosse Konsumunternehmungen fuer Verkauf, Verteilung und Bauwesen." - Rather than establishing a territorial State they should have extended the kind of panarchy they had already established and opened up opportunities for panarchies for their own dissenters as well as for all other kinds of panarchies for Arabs and Christians. Instead, they took a vast step backwards, by establishing a territorial Jewish State, which they imagined to be a progressive step. Several wars and civil wars since and uncounted terrorist acts have still not induced them to seriously consider their exterritorialist alternatives to achieve peace, security and freedom for themselves all of their non-Jewish neighbours. - JZ, 20.9.04. - (Whoever has a copy of the English original may insert the passage here. - JZ) The case is interesting as an instance of limited panarchism or biarchy or panarchistic self-help in Israel, before it became an “independent” territorial State. Since most Israelis are territorialists they haven’t learnt their lesson from this experience. – J.Z., 25.7.12. – ISRAEL & PANARCHISM

RUSSIA: For decades its troubles were caused by a few ruthless fanatics – now they are caused by many ignorant and prejudiced men who partly fell for the statist propaganda of the former ruling fanatics. – JZ, 29.6.91. – Freedom and choice for every adult Russian – and the over 120 ethnic minorities and all other minorities of the former Czarist and Soviet Empire, to live only under the governance system, society or community of their own individual choice, in full exterritorial autonomy and under personal laws. Then progress will take place, in all really important matters, as fast as it is possible for human beings with inevitably limited knowledge and abilities. But all creative knowledge that does exist somewhere could be made fast, easily and cheaply available, electronically, to all these self-government and self-management attempts. Free enterprise, freedom of contract, freedom to associate and to disassociate, freedom to experiment and full tolerance for freedom of action in the sphere of political, social and economic systems, presently still monopolized by territorial governments! I wish that Russia, Russians and the xyz minorities there would set this kind of example to the world. It would not need ABC mass murder devices and huge armed forces to get this kind of tolerant freedom options accepted by most of the world population. – Alas, even the best of the existing territorial governments are not prepared to themselves reduce their own power in this way. (Even if, thereby, their system might become world-wide adopted by many other people for themselves. – JZ, 22.10.08.) This change may have to be forced upon the first territorial government. The successes of this change must become obvious to the others before others would follow suit or, anyhow, their former victims would. – Could there be a more peaceful and rightful world revolution? It would be one that is merely the sum total of billions of one-person “revolutions”, quite voluntarily undertaken, in accordance with the own ideals. - JZ, 18.5.08. – Q.

RUSSIA: Not who rules but whether any undesired rule is discontinued over non-consenting subjects – that is decisive and in which spheres this unjustified power is discontinued first. – All the dissenters should have been freed to shake off their undesired chains and fetters themselves. - JZ, 25.3.93, 12.5.08. – INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY

RUSSIA: One kind of ruling, ignorant, prejudiced, territorial and enforced regime has been replaced by a number of also ignorant, prejudiced, territorial and enforced regimes, which have not yet seen full individual freedom and tolerance in every sphere as they only genuine alternative to the former totalitarianism. That tolerance should be extended even to the remaining various communists and State socialists. They ought to be allowed to do their things to themselves but not to any of the dissenters. Under full experimental freedom for volunteers we would see much and rapid progress, spreading from small beginnings, those of the few successful pioneering experimenters. The monetary despotism of the Soviet system has been continued unchanged. – JZ, 6.10.95, 9.5.08.

RUSSIA: Russia still needs much de-sovietization, especially of those aspects which are also sovietized in the West, e.g. the monetary despotism of its central bank, its decision-making monopoly on war and peace decisions, its ministries of trade, transport, industry, education and communications and its compulsory national membership, before it could be called a really free country and its former subjects would all be free and diverse peoples or people as free as they want to be. – JZ, 25.3.93, 2.5.08. – PRIVATIZATION

RUSSIA: See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON, Panarchie – immer konkret beschreiben. (Panarchy, always to be concretely described.)

RUSSIA: The new “democratic” Russia should have got rid of its communistic, despotic, coercive and monopolistic money system first of all, then of all its other territorial economic impositions upon dissenters. The institution of free elections and parliaments was not a good enough substitute. It still allowed popular errors, myths and prejudices to prevail over a whole vast territory and all its population. Dissenting individuals and minorities are still not free to opt out and do their own things among themselves and thereby to advance, quite rightfully and tolerantly, as fast and far as they can or want to. In that case no conflict with merely territorial secessionists might have occurred. – JZ, 6.4.93, 12.5.08, 25.7.12.

RUSSIA: The value of the output of light industry in Russia was less than the cost of its raw materials. – Radio Moscow report, 13.12.93. – In other words, communistic “planned” economics still prevailed all too much in Russia, after its supposed liberation, with the only difference that now its great failures could, sometimes, be freely reported. – JZ, 31.3.94. – Naturally, under continued central banking and many other bureaucratic interventions: price controls, wage controls, subsidies, quotas, regulations, prohibitions, compulsory licensing etc., its adaptation to a free economy, free pricing, free markets, free contracts, free enterprise, is greatly slowed down and fear of unemployment continues, together with its paper money inflation of its monopolized legal tender money. Moreover, territorialism persists and so no one is free to opt out of uneconomic systems and to try something else and possibly much better, among like-minded people. Political territorial democracy is no substitute for a free economy or for the panarchies of a free market for political, economic and social systems. – JZ, 11.5.08. – PLANNING, CENTRAL BANKING

RUSSIA: Why did it remain in economic trouble after its “liberation”? Mainly because it was not completely or enough liberated. Much of its economic interventionism, was continued, especially its monetary and financial despotism. It does not matter much whether totalitarian communists or democrats practise it. Nor was experimental freedom introduced for dissenters, who could have demonstrated better and successful ways to the rest. It largely remained a territorial empire with the usual territorial abuses and corruption. But then the Western territorial democracies have not exactly set a shiny example for it, either. – Which economic liberties are quite fully realized now, anywhere, in East or West? - JZ, 11.9.98, 9.5.08.


RUSSIAN REVOLUTION: The true object of the Russian revolution is emancipation from State coercion.”– Tolstoy, “The End of an Age”, quoted in: Henry W. Nevinson, Essays in Freedom, London, Duckworth & Co, 1909, 1911, p.272. – State coercion is possible only for territorial State. Thus only territorial States have to be abolished. Competing States with voluntary members only and confined to exterritorial autonomy would be as harmless to outsiders as such societies, organizations, communities, corporations etc. would be, even if they were to continue with their usual statist and authoritarian practices among their own members. – JZ, 29.9.07. - STATE COERCION

RYMER, Foedera (2nd ed., London, 1726-35), vol. ix, pp. 795, 706, 797. Quoted by LIU, ibid, page 35.



[Home] [Top]