The Exterritorial Imperative
L'Impératif Exterritorial ~ Der exterritoriale Imperativ

Die Systemkrise als Chance

Für wen??? Für "fake libertarians" (wie Jiang Rui Xin in einer Mail vermutet), die Free Banking angreifen wollen? Oder für die so zahlreichen "Freiheitsfreunde", die man überall trifft, die gar nicht so frei gesinnt sind oder denken, also rechte Konservative? Sozusagen das Gegenstück der linken "ATTAC" nun von rechts??? "Liberale", "Libertäre", wie weit geht bei Euch eigentlich die Freiheit? Mir scheint, daß nur Panarchisten wirklich Freiheit wollen...

Zwei Einladungen, die ich dieser Tage, wie so oft, NICHT bekommen habe, aber dann indirekt doch, wie meist, sind die zwei folgenden:[...]/Hamburger-Anlegerseminar-2011.pdf

Die zweite betrifft
Das Hamburger Mark Banco Anlegerseminar 2011:
“Die Systemkrise als Chance”
wodurch ich zum Titel dieses Blogposts inspiriert wurde...

Das hochkarätige Seminar, wie man so schön sagt, obschon es hier kaum um Diamanten geht, eher um Edelmetalle, und darunter ein bevorzugtes, wendet sich nicht an Minderbemittelte, weder im Geiste noch im Portemonnaie.

Unter den zahlreichen spannenden Beiträgen möchte ich hier nur einen herausgreifen, den des von mir persönlich bekannten und aus vielen Gründen geschätzten Kristof Berking: "Es liegt an der Geldordnung! – Eine Kritik aller gängigen Reformvorschläge von der 'Freiwirtschaftsschule' bis zum 'Free Banking'".

Aua, das sitzt. Kristof Berking, Initiator der Hamburger Hayek-Gespräche, wird mit einer Kritik des Free Banking seinen Mentor Hayek wohl gar in seinem Grabe verwundern, ist der verstorbene Nobelpreisträger im (zugegebenermaßen nicht immer sehr informierten!) öffentlichen Bewußtsein der Vertreter des Free Banking. Nun, ich bin nicht Prophet, und kann nicht voraussagen was Kristof seinem Publikum zu dieser Frage zum Besten geben wird, ich kenne auch nicht den allerneuesten Stand seiner Entwicklung, aber mir und vor allem seinem Publikum dräut Schreckliches, wenn ich von seiner mir gegenüber mehrfach geäußerten Ablehnung des Panarchismus ausgehe, bei dem schließlich Geldfreiheit und Free Banking (Bankfreiheit) Hauptelemente sind. Um dem zuvorzukommen, hier gleich vorbeugend einen Text von John Zube, den er mir heute geschickt hat, nachdem ich ihn auf diese Veranstaltung aufmerksam gemacht hatte:

FB Hamburg Mark Banco

"Die Mark Banco war eine 100% silbergedeckte Waehrung, die die "Hamburger Bank" in der Zeit ihres Bestehens von 1619 bis 1875 emittierte, nicht als gepraegte Muenzen, sondern als mit Silber gedecktes Giralgeld. Mit dieser ueber lange Zeit stabilsten Waehrung in Europa haben Hamburg und seine Kaufmannschaft Krisen stets besser ueberstanden, als andere Regionen, in denen das Geld inflationiert wurde. Ehrlichkeit waehrt am laengsten." - Hamburger Mark Banco Anlegerseminar May 2011, - - From the file pointed out by C.B.

Somewhere in the writings of Ulrich von Beckerath he pointed out that during the Napoleonic Wars the silver stock of that bank was confiscated and that, nevertheless, it managed to carry out its extensive business just as before, but without the pretence or reality of any silver cover and redemptionism, just going on, honestly reckoning with its clearly defined silver weight unit as its value standard for all its transactions.
This is the most important lesson which this historical bank has to teach us and yet it is not frankly pointed out to this coming up conference, in its introductory material, from which I took the above quote.

With such redemptionists notions, uttered as if they were the only sound and honest ones, full monetary and financial freedom or free banking and free exchange is still being attacked, even by many libertarians.

Anyone still living in Hamburg, with easy access to its libraries, should not have it too difficult to find out the important facts from local references:

For how many years was this bank forcefully deprived of its supposedly necessary cover and redemption fund and whether, if at all, its business was stopped or significantly diminished by this confiscation of its silver stock or whether it was able to carry on, largely, as before, without that supposedly necessary backing, just by continuing to use the weight unit of Silver that it had adopted as its stable and honest value standard for all its clearing and loan transactions.

In Hamburg it might be still possible to easily find out the volume of transactions it mediated before this confiscation, during the years while it was deprived of this silver stock and afterwards, when it had restored it, still thinking that it would be necessary for stable value reckoning, ignoring its own experience during these years.
Probably notions of the supposed necessity of trust, to be achieved through such a reserve, induced the restoration of this silver stock.
Seeing the total volume of its annual turnovers, the silver stock was, probably, not all that large and thus could be easily restored, without pondering whether it was really necessary.

Necessary was not only the adoption of a sound value standard, like silver was then, still, but of a sound lending and repayment policy, to honest and productive firms or to honest and efficient merchants.

Necessary was free clearing, to turn over goods and services, including labor.
To the extent that physical means of payment were still preferred, clearing certificates, IOUs and banknotes in monetary denominations, all with a clearing foundation, would have sufficed. To a large extent also merely credit and debt-accounting would have sufficed, using a stable value standard, like the agreed-upon silver weight unit.

Although its value standard was not coined out by that bank, under free coinage it could have been coined out by that bank or other minters, for those willing to pay the costs.
The coins could have been privately minted, with numbers and mints expressed on them and with sufficient publicity assuring honesty in this business.
After some wear or wilful clipping of these coins, they would have to be withdrawn and minted into full weight silver coins again.
The abstract silver weight unit as a value standard could have been kept easier and at no such extra costs.
The abstract but measurable silver weight unit, constantly measured in all free silver markets, could have served as a sound and honest value standard for many more transactions than a physical silver coin or bullion stock could have mediated, making thus the production and exchange of other goods and services, including labor, independent of the stock of silver, apart from the then prevailing payment habits, which required, usually, coins for wage payments, especially since bank notes in small denominations were usually outlawed.

The same considerations apply, naturally to reckoning in gold weight units and to gold coins.
Freedom to use rare metal weight units as optional, honest and rather stable value units is, indeed, very important.

Using rare metal stocks as covers for clearing accounts or clearing certificates, or as reserve funds and redemption funds for any exchange media is neither cheap nor necessary.

Rare metal weight value reckoning, without possessing corresponding amounts of rare metals, is also possible and economical.

However, the means of payment involved, although not rare metal coins, but in form of clearing certificates, banknotes, book accounts or digital account credits, or any kind of tokens, must be covered and redeemable in or exchangeable for wanted consumer goods and consumer services, including labor, whose prices are also expressed in rare metal weight units.
Moreover, all these means of payment must be saved and made available for loans for certain periods. Such loans must also be repayable in such means of payment.

This sound and honest alternative clearly distinguishes between means of payment and value standards and is more economical than the rare metal cover, reserve and redemption system for issuers of exchange media in much cheaper materials than rare metals.

It can cope with any increase in the volume of goods and services produced and exchanged, without the rare metal production being increased to the same extent.

We should honestly explore this alternative and make use of it in future.

In free competition between rare metal redemptionist note-issuing banks and those, which retain their rare metal weight unit as their value standard, but without redeeming their notes in rare metals, the latter would win through their lower costs.

All that would be needed, to uphold this kind of rare metal accounting or rare metal clearing value standard would be free markets in rare metals.
They exist anyhow, when and wherever they are not outlawed.

By all means, do explore all historical experiences with rare metal value accounting and clearing instead of rare metal value redemptionism and arrive finally at the same conclusion.

While sound rate metal value standards are very important, and should always be among our options, one can use them without stockpiling cover, reserve and redemption funds and redeeming notes, clearing certificates etc. upon demand in these covers.

Whatever metallic conversion of means of payment is then still wanted by some, could be achieved on the rare metal markets.

John Zube, 10.4.11

Christian Butterbach, April 10, 2011 20:27 GMT+1 [Link]

Christian Butterbach, December 06, 2010 13:52 GMT+1 [Link]


"The time has come to start thinking in terms of choice in government."

It is in 1860 that Paul Émile de Puydt coined the word panarchie (panarchy) and convincingly suggested and wrote about this peace and freedom creating idea. This year 2010, ending this month (still time to place some nicely wrapped constituent of panarchy under our Christmas tree!), is thus the

150th anniversary

of de Puydt's (or De Puydt's if you prefer his accepted abbreviation as botanist) great modern trait of genius! Even though strong elements of panarchy and non-territorialism (personal law instead of territorially monopolist one) have existed in theory and above all in practice in human history well before that. Albeit you might not hear about it very often in the evening news... or in class rooms for that matter. But things seem to be a-Changin' :-) recently.

Great minds are falling for it, in whole or in part, ever more frequently. Greatly helped in this by the great art of governments and associated power elites everywhere to create gorgeous catastrophes.

Prof. Rozeff is one of those top panarchists helping to promote the idea and us to ever better understand it. He is also one of those still too rare ones that have put the one or other practical detail that is not yet fully solved on his scientific research agenda.

Commemorating this important anniversary, he made us the present these days of his following article:

Do You Really Want To Be a Republican or a Democrat?
You will find it on this site here.

Christian Butterbach, December 01, 2010 18:41 GMT+1 [Link]

Catching Up

- ALSO with the disagreements between most anarcho-capitalists and most panarchists

by John Zube, slightly edited by Christian Butterbach

As for anarcho-capitalism and panarchism:

Only a kind of anarcho-capitalism or Laissez-Faire for Free Market advocacy that would be:

1. quite tolerant towards all tolerant people,
2. voluntaristic and
3. exterritorial

would be panarchistic in the sense of aiming to realize one particular panarchy, the anarcho-capitalist one, at first only as one among very many other ones, all of them likewise tolerant, voluntaristic and exterritorial, but also ambitious.
It would do so like a good businessman, who wants to become the best supplier and thus the one with the most customers, continuously satisfying the largest number of people, until he becomes a multinational and as such even the largest one among all the multinationals.

One has to distinguish between the initial aim, namely to popularize experimental freedom in the economic, social and political sphere for all, so that even the minority of anarcho-capitalists can freely practise it among themselves and set an attractive example to all others, from the likely consequences of this approach and the final result, in which anarcho-capitalism would not just be another one among many but would already have become the by far most popular model, except e.g. for some nuns, monks, remaining primitive tribalists or religious sects of fanatics, who e.g. might flagellate, castrate or sterilize themselves, or wish to spend their lives on top of a pillar etc.

Ultimately, anarcho-capitalism is to become not only as popular as but more popular than e.g. globalism, consumerism, sports, amusements, bestsellers and representative democracy are now, i.e. almost every individual would sign up for it and would take its above-mentioned 3 foundations for granted, just like they do now already, in most countries, take experimental freedom in technology and the natural sciences and religious freedom for granted and private life-styles as well, free choice in jobs and professions and in leisure activities, travel options, hair styles, food and drink choices etc.

Naturally, other kinds of panarchists would have similar ambitions. However, what would be their chances, in the long run, in free competition with consistent anarcho-capitalists?

Panarchism, for the present small minority of anarcho-capitalists, whether they are as yet aware of this or not, does not mean a rejection of anarcho-capitalism as their ideal but, rather, a chance, their best chance, to realize it as soon as possible for themselves and, thereby, also get their best chance to realize it, as soon as possible, for the vast majority of all people, all being constantly invited to that on-going and very successful "party" - as soon as they are ready to accept its enjoyments and its self-responsibilities.

The attractiveness of anarcho-capitalism is now only the greatest for those who are already NOW anarcho-capitalists. The majority of people still fear freedom in one or even several spheres. Thus, like natural sciences and technology once did, it rather stagnates, like they did, while they did not enjoy experimental freedom.

However, once the above minimal 3 points become realized, the progress of anarcho-capitalism, its membership, the number of its subscribers, will tend to grow fast, until finally it will be almost as universally accepted and utilized as are e.g. soap, towels, clean drinking water, pencils, ball point pens, paper and watches and others of millions of consumer products, which it also competitively produces.

Without a clear stand for all justified tolerance (but not too much tolerance e.g. for intolerant people), voluntarism (experimental freedom) and exterritorial autonomy for all groups in every sphere, the popular image, which most people have of anarcho-capitalists - is hardly any better than the popular image of "anarchists" has been for centuries, namely:
A number of prejudiced, ignorant, and dogmatic fanatics, from whom any kind of unwarranted violence may be expected at any time, so that it would be best to keep them suppressed, as much as possible.

The territorial State, not Laissez Faire and a truly FREE MARKET, is still "God Almighty" in the eyes and "minds" of most of the territorial statists and thus the anarcho-capitalists are mostly considered, EXCEPT BY THEMSELVES, to be merely deluded sectarians or mere "exploiters" and "profiteers" or "monopolists" or as powerful "capitalists" at best and at worst as dangerous fanatics and terrorists.

In short, try to consider panarchism as the most rightful and efficient MARKETING SCHEME for Anarcho-Capitalism - and you will understand most of the still all too few conscious and consistent present panarchists, in the meaning of De Puydt's initial essay on it, much better than you did before.

So far anarcho-capitalism for the whole world is only a present dream of a few people on Earth, just like State Socialism was once a mere dream of a few territorial State Socialists. However, State socialism had to be introduced and maintained by force, until, finally, it had weakened itself so much that it collapsed - in most cases - in its totalitarian forms.
In its democratic and republican, constitutional and legalized territorial forms it is, unfortunately, still alive and even spreading, seeing the growing number of interventionist laws and regulations in almost every sphere.

The most contrary form to territorial statism and, ultimately, most attractive alternative for individuals, amounts to individual and group choice for all forms of societies and communities that are offered to voluntary subscribers.
Then, at least in the long run, the most attractive model would be bound to win over most people.

All would already offer voluntary taxation for their voluntary members - a great step forward. Then, in free competition between all of the diverse new panarchies, all freely chosen by their members, which one would be most competitive, have the least taxation, if any at all, and would have most to offer their members at very attractive market or subscription prices?

It was once widely believed that territorial "free" voting would bring about the best territorial society or State.

Instead, it has lead to increased taxation and increased legislation.
It did not sufficiently realize individual consumer sovereignty in the public sphere, that of political, economic and social systems.

Territorial systems and institutions were and are not offered as individual options to consumers, as free market choices for individual consumers, from "shelving" offering all such systems, to individual shoppers, filling their shopping carts with them and then paying for their selections at a cashier's desk. That can only be done exterritorially, under personal laws, for diverse groups of like-minded individuals.

Thus wide-spread disappointments were likely and did and do occur all too often. They led to fruitless party strife and party rule, to resistance, even to groups of "freedom-fighters" and terrorists, violent revolutions, military insurrections, civil wars, wars and despotism, even totalitarianism and to large statist utopias, only somewhat diverse, with all relying on territorialism and its kind of unjustified violence towards peaceful dissenters, instead of to exterritorialism, voluntarism and tolerance, with the latter three features still not being generally considered as rights, opportunities and liberties.

Territorialism, with its intolerance, coercion, lack of choice and degree of stagnation, e.g. through the arms race, now with WMDs, has become a dead-end road, one that is likely to lead to the ultimate and quite general holocaust for mankind.

So far not even the "right" of a few to have the fate of mankind monopolistically in their hands (territorialism with its decision-making monopolies) and to use even anti-peoples "weapons", upon the "principle" of collective responsibility (of the victims of territorial governments for the actions of their rulers), is sufficiently questioned by the ruling "intellectuals", politicians, bureaucrats - and anarchists and libertarians.

A genuine and lasting peace, based upon freedom and justice, voluntarism and tolerance (as far as it can and should go), is only offered along the panarchist road for all kinds of panarchies - in the long run. If that road is chosen or opened for individual and group choices, then, in the long run, the anarcho-capitalist method will prove to be the most competitive and thus most successful one. However, that success is not likely to happen at all or fast enough if it remains merely dogmatically offered as the supposedly only road to salvation, as the only game in town, the only bet, the only choice, the only option, the only workable utopia.
Men love to contradict, even when their "arguments" are without foundation and logic.
They are a bit more careful when it comes to spending their own money, current cash and savings, time and efforts - in individual choices.

Panarchism tries to open up everything that is rightful and tolerant, everything that is self-responsible, to all individuals, even when it comes to whole political, economic and social systems.

It will be evolution in action, in relatively short-term action, not over geological periods.

To each his own choice will work best for all, in the long run. It is even the fastest road to individual and minority groups progress and progress for the majority.
But so far only the panarchistic anarcho-capitalists are sufficiently aware of that.

Has this short attempt cleared up some of the remaining doubts and objections in your mind?
Unfortunately, words, terms and diverse definitions of them do all too often block communication and understanding and lead to and uphold misunderstandings.

As an aside and regarding our friend Nev's coming-up trip to Hong Kong: When the long-term lease of Hong Kong ran out, someone from the Northern Territory wrote a letter to the editor, saying that Australia should offer some space to people of Hong Kong, they would retreat to. He added that he himself and some of his contacts, in the Northern Territory, would have enough land to offer for one or even several new Hong Kongs on the continent of Australia. The Australian government should make up its mind to permit their establishment.

Alas, he still thought only of the territorial option and there encountered the mind-blocks of the territorialists.
He should, rather, have thought along the lines of fully duty-free and tax free shops and enterprises and industrial development zones, not regulated by any territorial governments at all but, instead, setting their own personal law rules for all their voluntary members, wherever they live and work.

I do admit that my worst fears for Hong Kong were not realized.

Compare how the Nazis and the Soviets or Mao would have treated that kind of reunification.

"Clubbing" of like-minded people, all in their own kinds of "clubs" and without clubs as weapons but mere words and images used as weapons against the members of other clubs, - amounts to the rightful and essential solution.
A free society for all kinds of clubs, societies and communities of volunteers, even for those of voluntary victims, as long as they are prepared to put up with such treatment. (Even sado-masochism for sado-masochist adults. They do each other no wrong.)

Not only, as in fair sports: "May the best one win!"
But: The best utopia, method, system, institutions, personal laws will win, as soon as possible and as widely as possible.
Losers will have lost only as a result of their own free choices and actions.
Those whose "cooking" is flawed will have spoiled only their own meals. No one will be forced to eat them. Anarcho-capitalists, winning over all other systems in free and voluntary exterritorial competition, will win much more than a mere gold medal.

Panarchism is not just another ism but an ism for all kinds of isms.

PIOT, John

Christian Butterbach, October 30, 2010 23:12 GMT+1 [Link]

Free Catalonia with Panarchy!

Yesterday Lew Rockwell posted a great article by Joakim Kämpe to "The LRC Blog." This is an important post I warmly recommend for your reading:

A Dissent on Secession and Catalonia

The post is also a comment about a blog piece by Shawn Stocker that Lew Rockwell had posted earlier, on June 30:

Visca Catalunya Lliure!

Hat tip to Dwight Johnson who drew my attention and the one of a number of other panarchists plus some renowned libertarians to this with the following words: "Very interesting article today on Lew Rockwell, where he quotes a fellow talking about the value of individual sovereignty and individual secession, or what we call panarchy."

Histoire à suivre!

Christian Butterbach, July 12, 2010 23:00 GMT+1 [Link]

Criminal Monopolist Monster Territorial State AKA "Our" Government Is Preparing Its Next Crime

The European Parliament wants to take away the right to search the Internet in privacy.

"As you know," says Dr. Katherine Albrecht, Founder and Director of CASPIAN Consumer Privacy and VP Marketing and Media Relations of Startpage (by Ixquick)/The private, anonymous search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing, "the Startpage and Ixquick search engines have helped millions of people protect their privacy through anonymous, certified proxy searching. Human rights activists, whistleblowers, and regular people all appreciate the security of knowing we never record users' IP addresses and we don't use tracking cookies.

But unless we act now, Europeans may lose that right.

A directive known as 'Written Declaration 29,' adopted last week by the European Parliament, calls for legislation that would require search engines to make a record of all search queries.

Spying on people's searches without evidence of a crime would throw us back to the East German Stasi era where everyone was under surveillance. We believe privacy is a fundamental right, and we have vowed to resist this move.

Please read and distribute our press release below. We need your help to spread the word."


Search Engines Should Become Government Spies, Says EU Parliament

Ixquick and Startpage will fight "Big Brother" data retention clause in Declaration 29

(Brussels / New York / Zeist June 28, 2010) A draconian proposal to retain all Internet search traffic, known as "Written Declaration 29," was adopted by the European Parliament last week. Framed as a measure to crack down on paedophiles, the controversial Declaration calls on the EU to require that search engines store all search traffic for up to two years for possible analysis by authorities.

Search engine Ixquick (, widely regarded as the world's most private search engine, has built a strong privacy reputation by storing no search data on its users. The company believes it has been singled out by the data retention proposal, and it has vowed to strongly oppose the measure becoming law.

"Since Google, Yahoo, and Bing already retain users' search data, this proposal is clearly aimed at Ixquick and our English-language subsidiary Startpage (," said Robert Beens, CEO of Ixquick. "We have worked hard to create a privacy-friendly search engine that embodies the spirit of EU Privacy Protections, in line with the strict recommendations of the EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. This Declaration is evidence that the left hand of the EU does not know what the right hand is doing."

Mr. Beens fears that if the measure becomes law, it will vastly undermine the privacy of over 500 million law-abiding EU citizens. Storing everyone's search data, rather than restricting surveillance to known or suspected offenders, would give the government access to a rich trove of political, medical, professional, and personal data on virtually every person in Europe. And critics say it will do little to stop child pornography.

"Sex offenders exchange files through underground networks. They don't find this stuff through search engines," said Alex Hanff of Privacy International, an advocacy group that is launching a campaign against the measure. "I spent eight years helping law enforcement track down online sex offenders and never once did we see a case where search engine data was useful."

Ixquick will join the public campaign started by Privacy International to stop the provisions of Written Declaration 29 from becoming law.

"Privacy is a fundamental right and the basis of a free society. The phenomenal success of Ixquick and Startpage proves that people don't want to be watched by their governments," said Mr. Beens. "Spying on law-abiding citizens is not the way forward, and we will stand by our principles to protect the public's ability to search in privacy."

About Startpage and Ixquick

Startpage is the English-language version of Ixquick, an international, award-winning search engine with an industry-leading privacy policy. Launched in 1998, Ixquick is owned by Surfboard Holding BV, a Dutch company. Ixquick has been awarded the EU Privacy Seal by the independent certification authority Europrise. Further information can be found at and

Christian Butterbach, June 28, 2010 23:43 GMT+1 [Link]

The Receiving End

Prof. Michael S. Rozeff, in a private e-mail exchange, writes, again touching one of the most basic principles of the situation we humans struggle with, this time the so topical monetary one that is menacing our future more than ever:

"I think that a workable procedure for currency reform is NO PROBLEM. The steps that can be taken are relatively simple. The problem is not knowledge, nor is it MAINLY ignorance of other people. It is entrenched governments supported by coalitions of willing people who are stubborn in their will to dominate the lives of others and take what they can get. The governments pander to people, they organize them, encourage the worst behavior, and spread it through the society. The evil results are due to the evil impulses in people and their capacity to form an effective organization to further that evil. People also have good impulses, but here is the essence of the problem as I see it. The people who have the most prominent domination responses are the ones most likely to form, enter, and run governments, and the people who want to live and let live are more prone not to, so that they end up on the receiving end of this nasty game. Then the dominators proceed to CORRUPT as many of the more retiring and passive types as they possibly can and to draw as many of the dominators as they can into their side."

Christian Butterbach, June 13, 2010 23:06 GMT+1 [Link]


Search entries:

Powered By Greymatter