Queen Ilana Mercer is well known for being anti-immigration. We, more left leaning libertarians and above all panarchists, may be less known (thanks to people like Her!), but are clearly pro-immigration and do not build our arguments in a restricted manner on top of an artificial monopolist territorial base. We look further. Let me show you how this intellectual escrime (fencing, swordsmanship — or rather bayonet exercise) works.

These days, as I mentioned in my latest post in my other blog, the subject of immigration has again become very topical. So, Ilana wrote a new column, "The Work Open-Border Libertarians Won’t Do", in which she addressed Tibor Machan and a discussion followed ["We thank Tibor for the response" — what did I say about Ilana being a queen?!]. You can read it all in her fief "Barely A Blog".

After the "Machan/Mercer Exchange", when Robert Rector entered the scene with Her "Robert Rector Of the Heritage Foundation On the ‘Transfer State’", I left the following comment (the very first one, by the way, to show up for this particular blog post):

May I reply to Robert Rector’s statement “When you confer citizenship on a low-skill immigrant, you are granting them the right to use the electoral process to access your income.” that this starts much earlier [and as he rightly remarks, doesn’t apply only to welfare (CB: and “illegal”) recipients, but fundamentally], namely at the moment when you establish a monopolist territorial state with its borders and monopolist constitution and all the accessories… The solution for propertarians and ALL the others is to be found in exterritorialism and panarchism, concepts that only slowly and only very recently have started to get any attention in libertarian and not so libertarian circles, though they are quite old already. They are even maybe boycotted, as seems to prove for example the little attention Adam Knott’s brilliant essay “The Present State of Liberty” has gained so far. If a statement is right, but doesn’t take into account another important and fundamental truth or reality, it may still be flawed or flatly wrong.

By Christian Butterbach on 06.16.07 10:00 pm

[Provide an explanation. Otherwise, no one knows what you are talking about.–IM]

Well, Ilana, I had assumed or hoped that if someone is intrigued by something completely new to him or her in my comment, s/he would either click my name and get to my websites’ portal or do a web search for “The Present State of Liberty” (first item showing up on Google) or maybe look up the word panarchism in Wikipedia. I suggest to those intrigued that they go to “The Exterritorial Imperative: Info on Panarchism/Exterritoriality” (http://www.panarchism.info/contents.htm) which page starts with the slogan “Enter the world of thought of Post-Territorialism and Post-Statism!”, and in addition go to “Panarchy - Panarchie - Panarchia - Panarquia” (http://www.panarchy.org/), where they will find more than they might be willing or have time to read and study, but I am sure that they will be fascinated by some jewels they will discover there. The space here is too limited to try to explain this all-encompassing political philosophy well enough, but I will give your readers a definition that goes beyond a slogan in my next comment.

By Christian Butterbach on 06.17.07 8:32 am

The definition announced in my second (censored) comment above was contained in my third one, which was published, though making the start of it sound a bit silly and revealing at the same time to Her audience that something has been suppressed:

Here comes the promised definition, which is by John Zube from “THE GOSPEL OF PANARCHY according to sinner John” (1986, rev. 1998):

PANARCHY : The realization of as many different and autonomous communities as are wanted by volunteers for themselves, all non-territorially coexisting, side by side and intermingled, as their members are, in the same territory or even world-wide and yet separated from each other by personal laws, administrations and jurisdiction, as different churches are or ought to be.

PANARCHISM : The body of knowledge and thought regarding the theories and practices of such voluntaristic non-territorial and autonomous communities (panarchies), considered as the rightful, peace-, freedom-, property- and reform-promoting alternatives to any attempt to set up or continue coercive, exclusive, uniform, territorial, more or less centralized and supposedly ideal or best possible communities for all, whether their subjects agree or disagree.

Panarchism teaches that panarchies form the ideal societies for as diverse beings as human beings are, that they would speed up the development and progress of man and his institutions to the utmost, in a peaceful and peace-promoting way, that panarchies, while permitting and institutionalizing one-man revolutions, would reduce the incidence of violent revolutions and wars to a minimum while retaining and even increasing the capacity of peace-loving people to resist and defeat violent aggressors.

By Christian Butterbach on 06.17.07 8:45 am

As I had alerted the inner circle of our panarchist gang to my comment on BAB, Adam Knott jumped on the occasion to further educate Ilana's audience. Unfamiliar with court audiences though, not having been raised in a monarchy like I have been, he had been more optimistic than I that his more scholarly comments would be welcomed by Her Serene Highness. One did, but the second found no mercy with Ms. Mercer. Mercyful just is not the same as Mercerful. Full of whatever.

The first (published) comment by Adam Knott reads as follows and carries a royal remark:

“If libertarians are intellectually serious”

I agree with Mr. Rector that Cato is on the wrong path from a libertarian perspective. In the essay Mr. Butterbach refers to, the point I tried to make was, this is because Cato is a democratic, not a libertarian organization. The fundamental political principles they espouse are those of democracy, and this is not and cannot be the same as the principles of libertarianism.

The contemporary political philosophy that most closely mirrors a libertarian approach is indeed the philosophy of “Panarchy” (see www.panarchy.org)as this philosophy is being gradually developed, apparently mainly by European libertarians.

Panarchy as I understand it, and as I have come to realize in my own libertarian social thought, is the realization of a non-geographical based conception of government. In this view, it would not be entirely accurate to hold with Mr. Rector that the transfer state needs to be eliminated (since ostensibly there are people who adhere to the social philosophy of welfare state democracy). Rather, those who do not agree with this philosophy and who want to organize themselves according to different legal principles, need to gain exemption from the transfer state. And this, understood non-geographically.

Simply put, the next step in libertarianism is the realization that libertarianism must be conceived as a non-geographical concept, and two people who live in the same apartment complex can live according to separate legal arrangements. (of course, this already happens, since the welfare state already makes legal distinctions based on race, ethnicity, physical ability, etc…)

Libertarianism and panarchism are the extension of this same principle (legal exemptions from the welfare state), but applied to libertarians, not only to “disadvantaged” groups.

[Sounds like anarcho-capitalism to me. More in “Restitution and Punishment: A Reply to David J. Heinrich,” as to why it’s a bad idea. http://www.ilanamercer.com/Archivedcomments.htm#DJHeinrich]

By Adam Knott on 06.17.07 10:18 am

But lackeys are sometimes smarter than Those Who hire them. A copy of the censored comment was saved before it could be deleted:

I don’t believe any Rothbard/Randian strain of “propertarianism” (private property ethic) captures what is unique about the concept of panarchy. There is no value predispostion to “capitalism” (the accumulation or other attitude towards capital, capitalists, business interests, etc..)in panarchy. As far as I know, Mr. Heinrich subscribes to a Hoppean-Rothbardian private property philosophy that attempts to “justify” a particular property arrangement, as being that arrangement that man’s nature requires. This is essentially a monopolistic and geographically based political conception that is exclusionary towards (replaces) all other arrangements, and views all other forms of social arrangement as unjust and unethical. (This is Rothbard’s private property theory, that Hoppe attempts to justify with his Argumentation Ethics, of which in turn Heinrich is a follower).
The idea of panarchy by contrast, strives for a different ideal; one of geographical co-existence of an unlimited number of societies. It is explicitly non-monopolistic and explicitly non-geographical. I haven’t heard anyone associated with Mr. Heinrich expounding such a political philosophy, and would be very surprised if Mr. Heinrich has himself. The Rothbard-derived social philosophies are mostly visions of “the one true system”, and have not yet come to consider the ideas of those proposing the concept of “panarchy”.

One may try to say that this idea is present is some limited form in the writings of the followers of Rothbard. But those who are trying to outline a panarchistic view of society, are arguing for this as an explicit ideal, and not only mentioning it in passing, or in obscure passages or Internet blog posts.

In this sense, the concept of panarchy (co-existence of non-geographical, non-monopolistic societies) is definitely not identical to “anarcho-capitalism”, the essentially monopolistic conception of government ultimately derived from Rothbardian and Randian social thought.

AK

By Adam Knott on 06.17.07 5:04 pm

I know it hurts, when you have made a special effort, and then you are unjustly rejected. Ilana's legitimate rules ["Barely A Blog is private property. Posts are published at the discretion of the proprietor. The forum is moderated and missives edited for style and taste. Please keep comments concise (200 words, at most), run a spell check, and try as best as possible to be grammatical."] have been stuck to. We have not been off topic. It would have been much more acceptable to flatly refuse any comments from us than to cut out their best parts, making us look shallower than we are, sort of handicapped cripples. This is totally unfair. And no sign of the freedom-loving and liberal attitude one should be able to expect here. We have made an effort to contribute our modest knowledge or our two pennies' worth, if you like, to Her blog, participating in making it lively, adding to its attractiveness and quality, providing some additional enlightenment to those who read it. And it certainly was no dull run-of-the-mill contribution, should She feel to have enough of those already.

On my own websites I have never refused or will ever refuse to publish any comment that I may not agree with or dislike, provided it is not anonymous nor of the sort that could get me illico (pronto) behind bars. If I do not agree I can explain why and when I am attacked I can defend myself. I would not simply make a good comment disappear. Silence and silencing are the deadliest of weapons. I hope I do not need to remind Ilana of an infamous poem by Rudyard Kipling, an author who, I presume, is not too left-wing for Her taste. [When his death had been incorrectly announced in a magazine (it was "TIME" magazine, not then and not now too much on the left either), he wrote to it "I've just read that I am dead. Don't forget to delete me from your list of subscribers."] She may have deleted me now from the list of Her blog readers...

We all have our egos and also our agendas. But some egos and agendas are more open and open-minded than others. I am happy to be much more independent than so many, not financially, mind you, but in my outlook, so that the pursuit of truth, an endeavour which should be common to all libertarians, I think, and in all fields, will not require of me to mitigate too much anything that needs to be said about Rothbard and Rand and all the others, living or dead. While I admire those great people, like you do, none of them can claim to be God. They form a community of the greatest. And working together is a win-win situation for all of us libertarians, and thanks to us, in the long run, for all of humanity. Ilana is too much into politics, and so are too many in the movement. When the simplest courtesy is not valid anymore [even a Queen lacks it nowadays! ;-)], as in all probability my little cooperation could not be rewarded by leaving my useful second comment which contained links that would have promoted a little also my own sites and those of my friends (and for good reasons) and thus might have stepped on the toes of the one or the other éminence grise (the power behind the throne), I can only say Ade! (bye)...

I may be wrong. Maybe, in this case, it is just a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

CB

Joern Manfred Zube                 22. 1. 07
35 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW 2577
or P.O. Box 52, Berrima, NSW 2577
(02) 48 771 436

Philip Western, Valuer General
GPO Box 15 Sydney NSW 2001

Re: Notice of Valuation, Land Value as at 01 07 2006

I do object against that evaluation of my residentional block:

"7/35/758098/ 1/879471 (Lot 1 - Coal Rights Only)"

Dear Sir,

         firstly, your notice is unclear and confusing:

At first it speaks only of Coal Rights and then it speaks of the general land value and the rates that would be based on it.

No distinction is made between my surface rights and their value and the subsurface rights and their value. They are not separately mentioned.
Only a total is given of $ 354 000.00

Firstly, according to my memory, if I remember right, that is about 5 times as much as the last valuation
at about $ 72,000.--
Has the price of coal increased five times since then?
Certainly, my income has not increased five times, not even in further inflated monopoly and legal tender government paper money, and, lastly, all taxes, even on capital property, have to be paid out of income, particularly as far as unused capital values are concerned, like coal deposits, not yet mined.

With the tax to be expected on this valuation I might be driven out of house and home in my old age, I am 73 now, and had hoped to live to the end of my life in this largely self-built home.

You treat me like a feudal lord would, who wants to drive his tenants of "his" land, although you are merely supposed to be a public servant in a representative democracy.
You act thus even when your victims do possess a supposedly "freehold" land title.
How little this private property is respected by you is revealed by your taxes & your other monopoly charges for services.

Well, the percentage of the elderly in the population is increasing and via such official measures these victims of their supposed "representatives" often do not feel represented at all.
I do hope that this dissatisfaction will be strongly expressed in the next election returns.
On the other hand, you and your like may have cowed them already all too much and for all too long, to put up a resistance at least at the polls.

If the valuation for the surface rights had been given separately to the coal rights, then one could come to a reasonable decision on this matter.

Many years ago and all too quietly - I did not read anything about this in the papers or heard anything on this in broadcasts - at least the coal rights under private properties, if not other mineral rights as well, were nationalized by the NSW government of those days - without notifying each individual owner, which should have been the least of what should have been demanded and, moreover, without offering him or her any indemnification.

Then, some time later, an indemnification was offered - upon application within a certain limited period.
Many people may have overlooked that offer. I did not and did apply.
After a prolonged correspondence and as a result of long calculation, covering many pages and costing, probably, in postage alone, not to speak of your and my labor involved, more than $ 10, I was finally notified that my indemnification was to be $ 10.
I was "generously" allowed to refuse that not so generous "offer" - and I did.

Now you are writing me that the coal rights or land rights plus coal rights are according to you worth $ 354 000.00!!!

Are you making me a purchase offer for these seemingly so valuable coal rights, according to this, your evaluation, and if so, would you offer me again only a ridiculous $ 10, but, at the same time, still insist that I ought to be annually taxed according to your "evaluation" of "my" coal rights capital value?

I can see in this only an extremely abusive kind of State Socialism and State Feudalism, for which you were never formally authorized by the public, by a referendum, far less by individual consent and power of attorney.

Almost everyone in this district knows about the crooked land deals that a former NSW minister for lands ( later even Premier! ) attempted in this district alone. I know of at least two such cases, in which he tried to enrich himself through his position and insider information. Luckily, he did not get away with these two attempts. I do not know how often he did succeed with other such endeavors, elsewhere in NSW.

But I am under the impression that his kind of crookedness, this time for public revenue purposes, continues, as a tradition, in this department.

In my case the subdivision of this block and then building on the subdivision is severely restricted.
Your evaluation takes no notice of this fact and treats the land as if it were under no such restrictions.

I wanted to pass on, cheaply, for only a nominal amount, half of my block to my second son or to any of his four children, so that they could build a home there. But present restrictions would not allow that.
Recently I read that even if I were allowed to pass on the title of half of my block to my son or grandchildren, I would still be taxed as if I had sold it at your evaluation!
Is that the kind of justice I can expect from you and your cohorts?
Gifts evaluated by strangers and charged with a high tax!

Not only do I have to continue paying high surface land rates for the unused lower half, but I have to keep mowing it, too, regularly, too. Always in the knowledge that these of my labors will be highly taxed, via the rates, too, not only in the petrol I use up in the process.

My income is so low, that I did not have to pay taxes this year but got a refund out of small investments that were pretaxed etc.

Your evaluation would put me into a high land tax bracket, leading to a land tax with which I might be altogether unable to cover from my low income.
Then your evaluation would amount for me to an expropriation! I would be driven out of my house and home!For then I might have to sell my home and this under pressure, in a relatively short period, i.e. under its market price, which would, probably, be very different from your official evaluation.

So I suggest that you reveal to me, separately, the coal rights valuation and the surface rights evaluation and make me an offer to buy the coal rights or arrange for such an offer to be made to me.

I do not really want the lower half of my block but neither would I be willing to pass them over to you for a mere $ 10.
Fair is fair and ridiculous is ridiculous.

Many years ago I have already sold off the blocks right and left of this one and other people have built their homes upon them.
I certainly do not want to contribute to the land shortage, hoping for a profit from a future sale at a high price.

That above-mentioned "indemnification" amount offered was so ridiculously low that I may still continue with an old plan to publish all the correspondence on this subject in a brochure, or online or on disk. This would, merely by its facts, ridicule the Department of Lands and the Valueer General Office and their activities.

Naturally, you would use your coal "rights" title to extort further taxes in the future from coal miners and thus from their customers.

It is a racket indeed, in which you are involved.

The other compulosory taxes, even progressive taxation, do not have my consent, either.
The communists, who propagated compulsory taxation first, abolished it even before at least some Western governments did. Most "Western" governments still follow the ancient communist party line in this, already expressed 1848 in the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels.

All compulsory taxation should be abolished and replaced by prices, subscriptions and insurance premiums or voluntary taxation - for wanted, ordered and competitively supplied services only.

All communities should become confined to volunteers and exterritorial autonomy only.
Territorialism leads to wars, civil wars, bloody revolutions, insurrections, military uprisings and private terrorism
as well - and, lastly, to the general Holocaust with WMD. History is full of proofs for that statement. I have also written two books on the subject.

Almost every territorial State - apart from some mini-ones - has all too much in common with a criminal protection racket like that of the Mafia.
All the democratic pretences about it are just so much camouflage or propaganda.

A territorial & "representative democratic" government is ethically, morally, by rights, no more the rightful owner of a whole country and all its inhabitants and their properties and incomes than ever an absolute king or emperor was, regardless of the laws passed by that government to suit that government.
Nevertheless, they continue to treat us, to a large extent, as their property, likewise our real estate, other property and earnings.

Until a government allows dissenters to peacefully secede from it, individually and in voluntary groups, and tolerates all kinds of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers within its former borders, it is not based upon genuine consent, in spite of all its braying about its "mandate".
As a compulsorily territorial State, with involuntary subjects and taxpayers, it remains, more or less, a "warfare State" and a State for the official exploitation of its subjects, under the pretence of serving them.

The Nazis passed laws, too. That did not make them right.

Not only the Aborigines have some reason to consider the later comers as invaders and as an occupation force.

Now territorial "white" governments organized an occupation force, legalized themselves and treated all their subjects, regardless of their skin color, religion, ideology and individual preferences, apart from the occasional more or less farcical "free" elections and referendum, to a large extent as their property, to use or abuse as they please, under the pretence that they would be acting democratically. - People treated as property!

How undemocratically even the Australian governments are is indicated by the fact that they have still not published or subscribed to a decent declaration of individual rights and liberties.
Admittedly, the Nazis and the Communist Totalitarian Regimes didn't, either.
But should we continue to follow their examples?
Did we ever have a referendum e.g. on the kind and level of taxation?

Not recognizing the right to migrate and settle for all peaceful people, the Federal Government has even introduced concentration camps in Australia for illigal immigrants, their wives and children included!
Territorial laws are forced upon these victims, too, all too largely with the consent of the public which has been miseducated and misled via the nationalized "education" system and the still all too government controlled broadcasting and the government's "media policy".

Should we still be proud to be Australians and consider it to be a free country and ourselves free?

(Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice!)

1. Liberty Dollar Faces Extinction

The Liberty Dollar is now under attack from…our bank. On Monday, November 20, the Evansville office received a certified letter from our bank, Old National Bank, which said: “Please be advised that if you do not close the Account within 15 days of the date of this letter (11.16.06), Old National Bank will exercise its right to close the Account.”

Had we bounced checks? Nope, not a one. Were we a difficult customer? Definitely not. Had we done anything to warrant the bank to close our account? No, but obviously something upset the banking powers to be. The VP for Bank Security, who ordered the letter, told us that they had investigated our business and said that the “nature of our business” was too risky for them. Of course the bank’s action is clearly the result of someone calling the bank and telling them to close our account. Probably the same person who told the US Mint to issue their warning. The same person who told CBS Lies (not worthy of “News”) to do their dirty work. The same person who urged the Washington Post to write their propaganda to kill the Liberty Dollar idea. The same morally corrupt person who might even be reading this Newsletter.

He was so kind to let me know the following:

I know the answer to the mystery! I attended the very seminar (organized by The Institute for Humane Studies, theihs.org) which Horwitz reported from, and the "mysterious Tom" is in fact: Tom W. Bell. Read more about him here: http://www.theihs.org/people/id.680/people.asp.

And a few links regarding the subject matter of this site:

• Polycentric Law
• Polycentric Law in a New Century
• Polycentric Law in a New Century (reprint of the preceding, and like the preceding, a slightly revised version, without footnotes, of the next)
• Polycentric Law in the New Millennium
• The Jurisprudence of Polycentric Law

Is it not a hopeful sign that this panarchist site found help and cooperation from someone close to or active in a political party which also sits (with 6 Members) in the European Parliament as part of the "Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats"? To my knowledge, the European Parliament is not the most active promoter of panarchism... ;-)

This is a good opportunity, as we are talking fascinating people and fascinating ideas, to draw your kind attention to someone I only recently became fully aware of, one of those rather exceptional persons who are real good because they are very good not just in one area, a modern Renaissance man, if I may say so:

Svein Olav Nyberg

Visit his websites. You can start at this one. But please make the effort to visit all parts and discover all the attached wings of his online Renaissance palace or you will miss something precious. In particular, don't miss his "Ye Bodye Page". And read the paragraphs on Food. As I am knowledgeable here, and Longevity being also a panarchist concern, I can tell you that you will hardly find anywhere such good sound advice in a nutshell on the most important basic matters regarding your nutrition. This is of course not astonishing. As in all other fields, the generally accepted wisdom is at the antipode of truth.

The three paragraphs on food start with the amusing and intriguing words: 'Everybody knows that it matters what you eat. "You are what you eat," right? As cartoon cat Garfield concluded: "Avoid fruits and nuts!" - or as almost everyone else have concluded "Avoid fat!"'

But this advice on nutrition is only one of the pearls in the oyster. Learn about egoism! And don't miss the Peanuts cartoon, where Lucy asks Charlie Brown: "YOU SAY WE'RE PUT HERE ON EARTH TO MAKE OTHERS HAPPY? ~ THAT'S RIGHT! ~ WHAT ARE THE OTHERS PUT HERE FOR?". I can only conclude with what Svein Olav Nyberg has in the signature of his email:

"Did you ever contribute anything to the happiness of Mankind?"

"Yes, I myself have been happy!"


- John Henry Mackay