Manus E ZIP Try

First complete translation, from German into English, with some changes and additions: 1979.

First published in the PEACE PLANS series as PEACE PLANS 61 - 65, in 1979.

Then re-filmed and reproduced in PEACE PLANS 61-63. (Refilming on 3 microfiche was cheaper than getting 5 microfiche duplicated again, in a set of 100 each.)

In the present proof-reading of the scanned texts some changes are likely to be introduced again.

Previously to 1979 only some sections were published in my PEACE PLANS series.

Digitized: 6.12.02, which took about 10-11 hours with my old system. (HP PrecisionScan. - The newer programs, Omnipage 9 - German & English version - & Omnipage Pro 10 - presently refuse to recognize the existence of my scanner: HP ScanJet 6200C.) The proof reading will probably take much more time.

Available free of charge, upon request, by e-mail, in RTF, zipped, until it is available on some website or CD-ROM.

No copyrights claims are made except that I reserve the right to publish it myself in any medium and to allow others to do so.

If you should know of a better libertarian peace programme, please do inform me about it.

Most of the ideas here somewhat systematically explained were alphabetically combined in my second peace book:

"An ABC Against Nuclear War", primitively offset printed & bound as PEACE PLANS 16-18 in 1975, later microfilmed and then microfilmed again, as PEACE PLANS 16/17, then also digitised and made available via e-mail.

The German original was microfilmed in PEACE PLANS 399-401, with some additional material and recently digitised and is also available by e-mail upon request. It comes to 579 Kbs zipped in RTF.

The German original is being revised by Andre Lichtschlag for publication in print, upon demand, with certain segments excised.

The digitised versions are the most legible ones. They are also somewhat corrected, revised and supplemented.

In the appendix some material is here added to this peace book, items that appeared in PEACE PLANS 61-63, for this digitised edition is also to serve me as an electronic version of PEACE PLANS 61-63.

& Research Centre for Monetary & Financial Freedom Libertarian Peace Plans, Panarchism, Productive Coops, Free Trade, Libertarian Defence, Liberation Revolution & Militias, Alternative Media & Enlightenment Options, a Libertarian Encyclopaedia, Archive of Ideas, Bibliographies, Abstracts, Indexes, Definitions, Classification Schemes, Directories, Reviews, Slogans for Liberty Encyclopaedia, Refutations Encyclopaedia, etc., on the road towards a complete and permanent Libertarian Library, Publishing and Information Service, making optimal use of all affordable and powerful alternative media so far vastly under-utilized for libertarian texts, like microfiche, floppy disks, CD-ROMs and DVDs to bring about a genuinely cultural revolution & sufficient enlightenment, together with PIOT: Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams.

John Zube, LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING, P.O. Box 52 or 35 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW 2577, Australia, e-mail: jzube@acenet.com.au Tel. (02) 48 771 436. No FAX!

Main website: www.acenet.com.au/~jzube It lists alphabetically the authors of PEACE PLANS Nos. 1-1545 & offers and introduction to microfilming & some essays on monetary freedom and panarchism. Total nearly 5 Mbs.

Supplementary lists, alphabetically and by PEACE PLANS numbers, covering PEACE PLANS 1546 - 1768, on 5.8 Mbs, are now available at www.butterbach.net/lmp/ Cross references in these lists are still very incomplete.

LMP's main website offers a 2,000 pages guide to the PEACE PLANS issues that LMP has produced since 1977, containing, on about 500,000 pages, libertarian and anarchist books, pamphlets, magazines, newsletters, dissertations, bibliographies, directories, indexes, essays & articles, letter, review & leaflet collections, etc., with an average of over 300 pages per microfiche: $ 1 cash each, post-free for orders of at least 10, or 2 International Reply Coupons or $ 2 other non-cash, with small cheques not accepted.

Has any other individual published more freedom texts, more cheaply, in any medium?

Many of the PEACE PLANS in the Supplementary List do contain material compiled from websites, with their links. My thus recorded survey of libertarian sites is still very incomplete and I would prefer to see such a compilation on CD-ROMs.

Lists on the libertarian CD-ROM project are on www.butterbach.net/project.htm If you want to be entered in an update list, please contact me by e-mail, with the entry you prefer for yourself.

An alphabetical compilation on free banking or monetary freedom, 2.6 Mbs, is available on www.butterbach.net/freebank.htm A small step towards an encyclopaedia on Free Banking. Your entries are needed!

All of PEACE PLANS 1-20, 61-63, 183 & 399-401 are now available in small batches via e-mail, until they can be offered on a website or CD-ROM or both.

==================================================================================

A short

PEACE QUESTIONAIRE

Please keep your replies to 1-10 pages foolscap unless you have a whole libertarian peace programme to offer in manuscript for non-exclusive microfilming.

I intend to compile the answers into a book and to "publish" this on microfiche film. Mention your full name and address or not, as you please.

Please use separate sheet(s) for your reply. At least another 50 replies are needed for the first issue - of what thoughtful people think on peace. (The replies were microfilmed in PEACE PLANS 650.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You might consider this to be a mini-referendum, putting the thinking, responsibility and decision back to you.

That our governments and recognized experts are incapable of solving this question seems to be obvious by now.

Please send your answers to: John Zube, 35 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW, Australia 2577. jzube@acenet.com.au

(2002 address! I would gladly reproduce a larger edition than that offered in PEACE PLANS 650. - J.Z., 7.12.02.)

Is there a higher duty than thinking about & working for a peaceful, just & free society for all rational beings? - J.Z. 2/84.

==================================================================================

WHAT FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF ALL STATES TO ASSURE LASTING WORLD PEACE AND WHAT INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BE ESTABLISHED UPON THESE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES? ………………….………………………………….. 25 - 155

(A) P R I N C I P L E S ……………………………………………………………………………. 25 - 71

Sec. I What GENERAL new human rights must be included in all constitutions? …………………… 25 - 63

Sec. II What ECONOMIC new human rights are to be included in all constitutions? ………………… 64 - 71

(B) I N S T I T U T I O N S ……………………………………………………………………… 72 - 155

Sec. III To what extent have our institutions and principles for the protection of human rights to be changed?

What new institutions for the protection of human rights have to be established? ……………………… 72 - 92

Sec.IV What new economic institutions are to be established upon the above economic rights? …… 93 - 155

PART TWO:

HOW CAN THE REFORMS DESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE FOUR SECTIONS BE REALIZED? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 156 - 328

(C) FORCEFUL REALISATION WHERE NECESSARY ……………………………………………. 156 - 276

Sec.V Realisation of human rights and of the natural rights of rational beings, and thereby of peace,

by REVOLUTIONS to overthrow the dictatorial regimes ……………………………………………… 156 - 203

Sec.VI The organization of MILITIAS for the protection of human rights and the establishment of

world peace - and their conduct and programme in war and peace ……………………………………… 204 - 276

(D) ENLIGHTENING PROPAGANDA WHERE POSSIBLE …………………………………………. 277 - 328

Sec.VII How can the reform ideas advanced in this programme be sufficiently spread

in the democratic States? ………………………………………………………………………………… 277 - 328

A P P E N D I X . ………………………………………………………………………………………… 329 - 392

ALPHABETICAL INDEX ……………………………………………………………………………… 393 ff.

==================================================================================

2

3

4

This book is dedicated to the memory and ideas of Ulrich von Beckerath, who died ten years ago and was my admired teacher, mentor and friend for 17 years. He either developed, re-discovered or stressed most of the ideas in this book. From his writings, letters, notes and remarks in conversations with him I have taken very much literally, without always stating this expressly. Usually, I could not have provided a better wording myself and he did not want to be mentioned too often.

In the depth and sharpness and richness of his thoughts and ideas he has in my opinion not been exceeded by any other social reformer.

I hope that in the not too far future his numerous pioneering thoughts will become known and appreciated. Nay, more so: I do happen to wish to survive and live a long and free life, I wish life and liberty to all those dear to me and to all non-aggressive others and for this purpose I, all others and this whole world truly depend on the rapid realisation of his most important ideas, in the tolerant ways he suggested. Without them I do not see much hope for us but instead almost the certainty of disaster, a greater man-made disaster than ever before, perhaps the final one.

While I find his ideas as crucially important, I see them still and everywhere among the most unknown, ignored, misunderstood and least appreciated ideas in existence. This discrepancy is sometimes hard to take and only the hope, however forlorn, provided by his programme, gives me the courage to battle on.

Because of his advancing age and failing health after the second World War he did not get around to put this peace programme in writing himself. I am sure he would have done a better job of it. For all remaining its faults I claim exclusive responsibility.

J. M. Zube, 5/79.

5

On all those who will put this book away again, after a short glance, Bruno Jasiewski had this to say in his book :

Die Verschwoerung der Gleichgueltigen" (The Conspiracy of the Disinterested):

6

Here your last chance is offered :

Use the new economic, political and social tolerance here proposed, to realize your (in our view wrong) ideas, theories and plans, in rightful experiments, i.e. at your own expense and at your own risk, among voluntary members only (in voluntaristic, autonomous and exterritorial communities under personal laws), and then to appeal to others to voluntarily imitate your examples, but take care to cease all attempts to impose your ideas upon us -unless you want to be overthrown and held responsible by us, by all whom you oppress or threaten.

This book describes how this can be done, how ideas can become more powerful than all armies and police forces, how they can mobilise rightful defensive forces for the protection of all individual human rights.

7

This book is not a captivating novel. It demands much from its readers and is difficult to read because (apart from its style and structure, for which I am to blame) it brings many new, contrary, "great" and abstract ideas, none of them popular, most of them opposed to conventional thinking on these subjects.

Only a few readers will possess sufficient knowledge, interest and ability to concentrate to enable them to read it in one sitting. It would indeed be surprising if a book on which the author worked for several years, mostly from 1958-1962, could be read and understood within a few hours. I must myself confess that the subject matter, in describing, developing and revising the text, has cost me so much mental labour that I could work only on a few pages in one sitting.

Thus I appeal to you to use this book at first only like a reference work. For this purpose the contents description and the alphabetical index have been rather detailed. One could begin to read this book almost anywhere, for instance in the appendix section: The draft of a new declaration of human rights, in Appendix I and the Peace Programme, in Appendix V, bring in concise form the main ideas of this book. The essays and excerpts (in Appendix. 11/1 - 11/7) from dePuydt, Herbert Spencer, J. G. Fichte etc., describe clearly enough, although not with all international implications, the most revolutionary idea in this book. (This idea is going to be developed in great detail in a planned separate book, most likely under the title: The Exterritorial Imperative.)

(See the growing encyclopaedia: "ON PANARCHY", of which so far 24 volumes on 24 LMP microfiche appeared and also the website www.panarchy.org established by Gian Piero de Bellis, which brings the classic article by dePuydt in French, English, German, Italian and Spanish - & much other material. - J.Z., 7.12.02.)

One can also read most of the seven major sections of this book by themselves.

From the beginning to the end one should read this book possibly only after repeated part-assaults of the above type - if one has thereby developed a sufficient interest in the details of the peace programme contained in these pages.

Naturally, you do not have to follow my advice - but do remember, you have been warned!

As many thoughts in this book will be new to most readers or contrary to many of their established opinions, I also ask you to hold back with your criticism to the end, when you have finally read everything in context. (Then, by all means, get stuck into these ideas, preferably by writing to me. I would love to put out a volume of criticism of this work together with my replies.)

I have (here!) intentionally failed to answer all objections which I have already heard or which might be made. This book would only have become still more voluminous and less legible as a result.

In this respect and right now I can only offer my assurance that there are probably few books which considered as much criticism against the own positions taken. (This will be proven to a large extent when I get around to publish in microfiche form an encyclopaedia of refutations of common myths, errors, prejudices and beliefs on social subjects.)

Once you have read and thought through all the reform proposals here made and their interrelationships then you can hardly fail to notice that most of the initial objections and doubts occurring during a first superficial reading do no longer apply. I have not, knowingly, ignored any of the many thousand objections which were held against me in the oral discussions of these subjects, or which I could think of myself. Unless I have answered at least a few dozen, if not a few hundred objections, to my own satisfaction, I do not take any position in writing, as a rule. At least I always try not to do so - particularly when an idea is close to my heart.

Many readers, after a cursory perusal, are likely to ask what many of the reforms here advanced have to do with the promotion of peace and whether they would not even contradict peaceful endeavours. Among the most frequent

8

are likely to be the following:

Is not the cause of peace directly opposed to all military preparations and revolutionary attempts?

Does a peace lover really have to have military knowledge? Does he have to be a revolutionary? Does he have to understand something of ethics, economics and sociology?

Some detailed answers to such questions are to be found in the corresponding sections of this book. Here it must suffice to indicate some of its basic ideas:

One of the characteristics of the military establishments and of modern wars is their tendency to perpetuate themselves, to cause ever new wars and military expenditures and even to threaten mankind with extinction. I hold that only serious peace lovers are able to advance the principles and practices of military science from conventional military barbarism to an advanced stage at which military forces of the present type would be dissolved, where atomic destructive devices would be disarmed as valueless and where the last "wars" which might still be justified and necessary: defensive wars against totalitarian States, would no longer deteriorate into total wars but, instead, would be reduced to mere police actions against a small group of political criminals.

Such efforts would obviously not require great military strength in the conventional sense, large sacrifices of blood and many destructive measures. Moreover, they could, without nuclear devices, be successfully conducted against an enemy regime armed with nuclear devices.

Lastly, such "wars" could realize reforms which would largely prevent wars in the future. (Compare Section VI.)

Moreover, only peace lovers who are also revolutionaries, could rapidly end wars by depriving those of the participating governments which do not conduct justified defensive wars, of all their powers.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that for the prevention of war peace lovers must also know how to overthrow dictators, like Hitler, in time - and how their mass extermination devices could be destroyed. (Compare Section V.)

Moral philosophy is required to understand that the recognition of certain new moral principles, a rightful order built upon them and certain protective organizations, are an essential foundation for the establishment of peace, especially for the prevention of nuclear war. (Compare Sections I, III and PEACE PLANS No. 16-17.)

Peace lovers also require economic knowledge to enable them to carry out the economic reforms which are essential to end economic and ideological motives for wars and to render the financing of wrongful wars impossible. (See on this Sections II and IV.)

Peace lovers must also study sociology to enable them to see what difficulties must be overcome and what new institutions must be established in order to bring to general recognition a peace programme that is practicable but which contradicts, so far, the opinions of the majority and is represented today only by a handful of people. (Compare Section VII.)

It will frequently happen that a reader will get lost in the thicket of these detailed proposals. For myself I doubt that one can really discuss too many details of the problems associated with establishing world peace. Those readers, who are getting lost, should be able to re-establish their bearings by referring to the extensive contents listing and to the alphabetical index. (They might also benefit from consulting the alphabetized handbook provided with PEACE PLANS Nos. 16-17.)

I would not have been able to fully and freely discuss the contents of this book publicly in my home town, in "free" West Berlin. My superiors in the public service organization I was working in, told me that such ideas would provoke the Soviets and that I would lose my job if I would not give up

9

propagating them. I preferred to give notice and to migrate to Australia, back in 1959 Here, again, I soon ended up in a public service job. But here and in such a job I never experienced, during 20 years, any difficulties

for having uttered any of my radical views. To that extent Australia is still a free country and I do appreciate it as such.

In conclusion of my introduction let me quote Immanuel Kant's still necessary defence of the utopists (in "Kritik der Reinen Vernunft" - Criticism of Pure Reason):

10

TO THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

This book is partly a translation and to a small extent a re-writing effort of a German book manuscript begun in 1958 and completed in 1962.

As I was then unable to get it published or publish it myself and also incapable to put it into understandable English, I took up my PEACE PLANS series in 1964, in which I published small sections and the main ideas of this book separately. Most of the German book publishers, whom I approached with this manuscript, rightly concluded that there was not sufficient demand for it to permit conventional book publishing. The conventional self-publishing houses were too expensive for me.

I postponed the large chore of translating this book until I could no longer say that my English was insufficient.

Inclusion in the PEACE PLANS series was postponed because of its size and the unsatisfactory appearance of books in small print (Compare Peace Plans Nos. 9-11) and the difficulties and work in binding and selling such books. (Compare Peace Plans Nos. 16-18.)

Now, with microfiche publishing, I have no longer any technical excuses or economic ones for not putting this translation out. I just have to produce one legible copy to get the master fiche made, order a small number of duplicates for immediate mailing and depend for the rest only upon your interest and your orders.

My thinking has changed and, supposedly, advanced in some respects since this manuscript was written. But this concerns mostly only details not fundamentals. As a coordinated over-view of the close relationship between individual liberty and international peace and as a practical programme on how to establish and maintain both, it is still unique in my opinion, judging by the books, magazines, papers and talks I have come across in the intervening 20 years.

Thus I offer here my translation with only some re-writing, omissions and additions. A full revision of this thesis I will have to leave to some future date. However imperfect this book still is, I want it at least microfiche published, at last.

Many of its ideas have already been described or hinted at in the PEACE PLANS series. Whole sections of the Appendix have been published there but the whole programme was never offered in context and complete and

detailed enough. Thus it has, possibly, not been understood by anyone yet. To achieve this, it has to be at least completely published. To achieve a wide-spread understanding, institutions like those described in Section VII have to be established first.

I firmly believe that this book, or rather the ideas it contains, has the chance to change the world, nay even to save it. Whether it will do so depends on you. As far as an individual can undertake the initial steps suggested in this programme, I am in one way or the other engaged in them - all too aware that the institutions required to allow an individual to succeed with such creative endeavours have to be established first.

The potential is there - but it cannot be fully or sufficiently mobilised without your involvement.

J. M. Zube, 5/79.

11

PART I

A) Principles …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25

1. Introduction: Most Human Rights Apply only to Rational Beings …………………………………………. 25

2. Extension of the Principle of Tolerance …………………………………………………………………… 25

3. The Right of Individuals to Secede from a State - and Exterritorial & Autonomous Communities of

Volunteers ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

a) Definition of the Right of Individuals to Secede from a State ………………………………………... 26

b) Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers as Peace Promoters ……………………… 27

(How would the Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers resulting from the right to

secede be more able than the present States to establish and preserve world Peace? Would already the

mere exercise of the right to secede be peace promoting?)

Experimental freedom for social, economic and political experiments would prevent wars …………… 28

The arms race would come to an end ……………………………………………………………………. 29

A rational disarmament would become practicable ……………………………………………………... 29

The secret production of nuclear weapons would be made nearly impossible …..……… ……………… 30

Atomic weapons would be obviously useless ……………………………………………………………. 31

There would no longer remain an enemy territory or a territory to be defended. ………………………… 32

Frontiers and thereby all frontier wars would disappear ………………………………………………… 32

Civil wars would become very rare ……………………………………………………………………… 33

The communist world revolution would become difficult to impossible ………………………………… 33

Imperialist wars would no longer threaten ……………………………………………………………….. 34

Militarism would also end ……………………………………………………………………………….. 35

Instances of the conventional abuse of the principle of collective responsibility would become less

frequent …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35

Nationalism, in its new form, would cease to disturb peace …………………………………………… .. 37

Racial strife would be reduced ……………………………………………………………………………. 38

Trade wars would cease …………………………………………………………………………………… 39

A widespread understanding between people of different nations would become possible ……………… 39

The number of motives for wars would be reduced ……………………………………………………… 40

The decision on war and peace would be made by the people themselves ………………………………. 41

Militias would be established to guarantee world peace …………………………………………………. 42

World federations would become easy to establish ……………………………………………………… 43

International Law would subsequently rest securely upon human rights ………………………………… 44

The timely declaration of rightful war and peace aims would either prevent or rapidly end wars ………. 44

Prisoners of war and deserters would become allies ……………………………………………………… 45

Governments-in-exile could be more easily established and would help to end wars more rapidly ……… 46

Peace treaties would be facilitated ………………………………………………………………………… 47

Separate peace treaties would shorten wars ……………………………………………………………….. 48

12

The preparation and conduct of wrongful wars would become more difficult ……………………………. 49

World peace would also be promoted by an extension of freedom of movement ………………………… 51

The war promoting weapons monopoly would be abolished ……………………………………………… 51

Conscription could no longer be practised ………………………………………………………………… 52

Dictators could be much more easily overthrown ………………………………………………………… 52

Disobedience towards the orders of war criminals would be promoted …………………………………… 54

General strikes would become obviously superfluous to achieve peace …………………………………… 54

Wrongful wars could no longer be financed against the will of the people ………………………………… 55

Tax strikes against governments preparing an unjust war would become feasible ……………………….. 55

The sovereignty of governments, to the extent that it can lead to wars. would be abolished ……………… 55

Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56

4. Right and duty to resist ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

5. Right to bear arms ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 59

6. The right to organise and train militarily ………………………………………………………………………. 60

7. Freedom of migration and movement …………………………………………………………………………. 60

8. Arbitration courts ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 62

9. Assemblies in the open air ……………………………………………………………………………………. 62

Sec. II: What Economic New Human Rights Are to Be Included in all Constitutions? …………………………. 64

1. Right to break monopolies …………………………………………………………………………………….. 65

2. Freedom to issue standardised and typified means of exchange without legal tender ………………………… 65

3. Freedom to choose any standard of value ……………………………………………………………………… 69

4. Right to refuse to accept inferior or suspected means of payment ……………………………………………. 69

5. Free Trade ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 69

6. Freedom for and within productive cooperatives ……………………………………………………………… 70

B) Institutions …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 72

What New Institutions for the Protection of Human Rights Have to Be Established? ………………………….. 72

1. The Protective Institutions of the Old Kind Have Failed …………………………………………………….. 73

2. Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers …………………………………………………… 74

3. A New Human Rights Declaration Is Necessary ……………………………………………………………… 75

4. International Arbitration Court ………………………………………………………………………………… 76

5. Local Militias and International Militia Federation ……………………………………………………………. 77

6. What Principles of International Law Have to Be Included in the Constitutions? …………………………….. 77

a) The Faults of the Old International Law ……………………………………………………………………. 77

b) The New International Law, Based Essentially on Human Rights ………………………………………… 79

c) Whose Laws Are to Apply in Cases of Arguments between Members of Different

Protective Associations? ……………………………………………………………………………………. 82

13

7. Referendums ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 81

a) Why is the parliamentary representative system on its own, without the possibility of

referendums, insufficient? ………………………………………………………………………………… 81

b) Why and on what subjects should there be referendums? ………………………………………………… 82

c) How would the introduction of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers

affect referendums? ………………………………………………………………………………………… 83

d) Are the people to ignorant to decide rightfully in referendums? …………………………………………… 84

e) Would the people, unenlightened as they still are, at present, come too easily under the influence

of demagogues? …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 85

f) Are referendums suitable only for small States? …………………………………………………………… 86

8. Arbitration Courts ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 87

a) Why and to what extent should the sphere of private arbitration be enlarged? …………………………… 87

b) Some disadvantages of today's monopolistic and statist jurisdiction ……………………………………….. 88

c) Some general rules for arbitration courts …………………………………………………………………. 90

9. Recall of Officials …………………………………………………………………………………………... 90

10. Police Powers ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 91

11. Penal Institutions ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 91

12. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 92

Sec. IV: What New Economic Institutions Are to Be Established upon the above Economic Rights? ………… 93

1. Private Banks of Issue which Issue Goods Warrants (etc.) instead of the Banknotes of the Old Kind …….. 94

1/1 Definition of goods warrants …………………………………………………………………………….. 94

1/2 Purpose of goods warrants ……………………………………………………………………………….. 94

1/3 General notes on the foundation of means of payment ………………………………………………….. 95

1/4 Shop-, debtor- & acceptance foundation as cover, instead of a metallic redemption fund ………………. 95

1/5 Currency unit (standard of value) ………………………………………………………………………… 96

1/6 Gold market, gold coins circulation and discount of goods warrants ……………………………………. 96

1/7 Goods warrants must not possess legal tender ……………………………………………………………. 96

1/8 Limited validity or circulation period of the goods warrants ……………………………………………. 97

1/9 Repeal of the legal claim of creditors to payment in cash ………………………………………………… 98

1/10 Text of goods warrants, denominations and typification ………………………………………………… 98

1/11 Limits of goods warrants issues ………………………………………………………………………….. 99

1/12 Discount of goods warrants …………………………………………………………………………… 100

1/13 Use of goods warrants …………………………………………………………………………………. 100

1/14 Forgeries ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 100

1/15 The granting of loans ………………………………………………………………………………….. 101

1/16 The circuits of goods warrants …………………………………………………………………………. 101

1/17 Loans on claims ………………………………………………………………………………………… 101

1/18 Claims which can be discounted or serve as basis for loans …………………………………………… 102

1/19 Condition for loans: no price increases ………………………………………………………………… 102

1/20 Maximum amount for credits ………………………………………………………………………….. 102

1/21 Business area …………………………………………………………………………………………… 102

1/22 Fee for the use of goods warrants ………………………………………………………………………. 102

1/23 Repayment and cancellation ……………………………………………………………………………. 102

1/24 Repayment with clearing bills issued by oneself ………………………………………………………. 103

1/25 Debt foundation as guaranty for the reflux of goods warrants …………………………………………. 103

1/26 Surcharge in cases of repayments with other means of exchange ……………………………………… 103

14

1/27 Reflux by Means of the Purchase of Goods Warrants …………………………………………………. 103

1/28 Time Limit for Loans …………………………………………………………………………………… 104

1/29 Repayment in Instalments ……………………………………………………………………………… 104

1/30 Legal Form of the Issuing Centre ……………………………………………………………………….. 104

1/31 No Business Secrets ……………………………………………………………………………………. 104

1/32 Clearing Centre …………………………………………………………………………………………. 104

1/33 The Position of Employers in the Goods Warrants System …………………………………………….. 104

1/34 The Advantages of the Goods Warrants System for the Workers ……………………………………… 105

1/35 The Advantages of the Goods Warrants System for Wholesalers ……………………………………… 105

1/36 The Advantages of the Goods Warrants System for Independent Professionals ………………………. 105

1/37 Individuals as Issuers of Goods Warrants ……………………………………………………………… 106

1/38 Goods Warrants Issued by Large Firms ………………………………………………………………… 106

1/39 Principles and Conditions for the Granting of Long-Term Credits in Goods Warrants by the

Shop-Association Bank …………………………………………………………………………………. 106

2. Paper Money without Legal Tender but with Tax Foundation ……………………………………………….. 108

2/1 Freedom to Issue - even for the Treasury ………………………………………………………………….. 108

2/2 What Is State Paper Money when it Is not Redeemable and Does not Possess the

Legal Tender Characteristic? ………………………………………………………………………………. 109

2/3 What Is the Essence of Tax Foundation? …………………………………………………………………… 109

2/4 Why Should such Paper Money never Possess Legal Tender? …………………………………………….. 110

2/5 When Must the Issue of Tax Warrants Cease? …………………………………………………………… 111

2/6 Value-Preserving State Paper Money can only Be Issued upon Short-Term Tax Claims ……………….. 111

2/7 No Monopoly for the Issue of such Means of Payment ………………………………………………….. 112

2/8 Gold-Clearing Currency ………………………………………………………………………………….. 112

2/9 Surcharge in Cases of Tax Payments with other Means of Exchange …………………………………… 112

2/10 Limited Validity for Tax Warrants? ……………………………………………………………………… 113

2/11 No Secrecy for the Issue of Tax Warrants ……………………………………………………………….. 113

2/12 Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 113

3. Gold Clearing Currency within a Free Market for Gold and all other Metals which Con Serve as Standard of Value and as means of payment ………………………………………………………………………………… 114

4. Free Trade System, introduced by Free Ports and Free Trade Zones ………………………………………… 115

4/1 The Fundamental Aims of Free Trade ……………………………………………………………………… 115

4/2 Principles and Facts upon which Free Traders Rest their Case ……………………………………………. 116

4/3 The Ideal of Protectionists ………………………………………………………………………………… 116

4/4 Free Trade and Tolerance …………………………………………………………………………………. 117

4/5 Precedents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 117

4/6 Details on the Free Trade Zones to Be Established ……………………………………………………… 118

4/7 It Is up to the Protectionists to Arrange for the Barriers to their Trade which they Believe they Need …… 118

4/8 What Will Free Trade Associations Use as Means of Payment? …………………………………………… 119

a) Payment with Foreign Exchange ………………………………………………………………………… 119

b) Payment with the State Paper Money currently circulating .…………………………………………... 119

c) Payment with Gold Coins and Gold Deposit Certificates ……………………………………………… 120

d) Payment with Gold-Value-Clearing-Certificates ………………………………………………………. 120

4/ 9 Should Free Trade be Introduced even with Communist Governments? ……………………………… 121

4/10 Is the Transition to Free Trade too Difficult? …………………………………………………………… 121

4/11 Is Free Trade only Good for some People and Harmful ………………………………………………… 122

for others?

15

5. Productive Cooperatives ……………………………………………………………………………………… 123

5/1 Principle : Everyone Becomes an Owner of Means of Production ……………………………………… 124

5/2 Cooperative Property as Distinct from the so-called People's Property ………………………………….. 124

5/3 Establishment of Productive Cooperatives through the Purchase of Existing Enterprises ……………….. 125

5/4 Will the Unions Prevent these Reforms? …………………………………………………………………. 126

5/5 Closed Cooperatives as Opposed to Open Cooperatives …………………………………………………. 126

5/6 Main Problems: Management and Marketing …………………………………………………………….. 126

5/7 Distribution of Profits …………………………………………………………………………………… 127

5/8 Appeal to the Capital Market, when Necessary ………………………………………………………….. 127

5/9 Responsibility of Members ………………………………………………………………………………. 127

5/10 The Organs of the Cooperative ………………………………………………………………………… 127

5/11 Particular Advantages of Cooperative Production ……………………………………………………… 128

a) No more Strikes …………………………………………………………………………………………. 128

b) Rationalisation ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 128

c) Increase of Productivity by Subdivision of Large Cooperatives into small subgroups ………………… 129

d) Higher Quality of Products ……………………………………………………………………………… 130

e) Personal Independence …………………………………………………………………………………... 130

f) Working Hours ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 130

g) Earnings ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 130

h) Management Mistakes Will Become less Frequent …………………………………………………….. 130

i) "Go Slow" Policies Will End ……………………………………………………………………………. 131

j) Jobs according to Ability ………………………………………………………………………………… 131

k) Increase of Productivity through Job Rotation in Relatively Simple and Monotonous Jobs …………. 131

l) Theft and Embezzlement Will Be Reduced ……………………………………………………………... 132

m) Waste and Abuse through Neglect and Maliciousness Will Become Less Frequent ……………………. 132

n) Amenities ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 132

o) Less Supervision Required ……………………………………………………………………………… 132

p) Superfluous Jobs Reduced ……………………………………………………………………………….. 132

q) Corruption Avoided ……………………………………………………………………………………... 132

r) Just Determination of the Individual Share in the Profits ……………………………………………… 133

5/12 Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 133

6. Open Cooperatives According to Theodor Hertzka to Abolish the Monopoly Position of those

Natural Monopolies which Do not Deserve Recognition. ……………………………….…………………… 134

6/1 Unlimited Acceptance of New Members ……………………………………………….……………… 134

6/2 Participatory Decision Making by all those Interested ……….………………………………………… 135

6/3 All Business Open to Public Scrutiny ………………………………………………………………….. 136

6/4 The Essence of Open Cooperatives …………………………………………………………………….. 136

6/5 Any Remaining Monopoly Earnings Will Be Donated by the Open Cooperatives ……………………. 137

6/6 Land Monopoly ………………………………………………………………………………………… 137

6/7 Real Estate Property and Right to Living Space ………………………………………………………. 138

6/8 Conversion of Monopoly Enterprises into Open Cooperatives Means their Proper Socialisation

or Transformation into Free Market Enterprises ………………………………………………………… 139

7. Free and Private Building and Housing Market ……………………………………………………………….. 140

7/1 House Building Must Be Liberated ……………………………………………………………………… 141

7/2 Disadvantages of the Provision of Housing by the State ………………………………………………… 142

7/3 How Should Private House Building Be Financed? ……………………………………………………… 142

7/4 Tax Exemption for New Buildings and Building Credits ……………………………………………….. 142

7/5 Development of Saving and Building Cooperatives ……………………………………………………. 143

7/6 Rationalisation of Building ……………………………………………………………………………… 143

7/7 Cooperatives of Building Workers ……………………………………………………………………… 144

16

8. Private Social Insurance Companies …………………………………………………………………………... 144

8/1 Repeal of Compulsory Insurance with a Monopolistic Insurance Authority ………………………… 144

8/2 Self-Financing of the Private Social Insurance Companies with their Own Contribution Money .……… 144

8/3 Abolition of Interest Ceilings …………………………………………………………………………… 144

8/4 Safeguarding Insurance Fund Investments by the Reform of the Trustee Acts ………………………… 145

8/5 Decentralisation into Many Local Insurance Cooperatives …………………………………………….. 146

8/6 Separation of the Old Age from the Invalidity Insurance ………………………………………………. 146

9. Free and Private Exchanges ………………………………………………………………………………… 146

10. Voluntary Taxation …………………………………………………………………………………………. 147

11. Unemployment "Insurance" ………………………………………………………………………………… 149

12. Employment Agencies ……………………………………………………………………………………… 150

13. Private and Competitive Transport Services ………………………………………………………………… 150

14. Private and Competitive Energy Supply 151

14/1 No Monopoly for any Power Plant …………………………………………………………………… 151

14/2 Socialisation (via Open Cooperatives) for those Power Plans with a

Natural Monopoly Position …………………………………………………………………………… 151

14/3 No Nuclear Power Plants ……………………………………………………………………………... 151

a) They are Monopoly Enterprises ……………………………………………………………………. 151

b) They Can Be Abused for Military Purposes ……………………………………………………….. 152

14/4 Supply of Future Energy Requirements through the Opening up of New and Development of Old,

Cheap and, Contrary to Nuclear Energy, Harmless Energy Sources …………………………………… 152

15. Private Postal Services ………………………………………………………………………………………. 153

16. Private Water Works …………………………………………………………………………………………. 153

17. Private Garbage Removal ……………………………………………………………………………………. 153

18. Local Federations of Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers ………………………….. 154

18/1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 154

18/2 Remarks on some Possible Tasks of such Local Federations ………………………………………….. 154

18/3 Community Assembly as the Supreme Body ………………………………………………………….. 155

18/4 Financing of Common Expenditures ………………………………………………………………….. 155

19. Summary of Section IV ……………………………………………………………………………………. 155

17

DESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE FOUR SECTIONS, BE REALIZED? …………………………………... 156

C) FORCEFUL REALISATION WHERE NECESSARY …………………………………………………… 156

Sec. V: REALISATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND OF THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF RATIONAL BEINGS, AND THEREBY OF PEACE, BY R E V O L U T I O N S TO OVERTHROW THE DICTATORIAL REGIMES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 156

1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 157

2. What Is a Revolution? ………………………………………………………………………………………… 157

3. When Is a Revolution Justified? ……………………………………………………………………………… 157

4. Against Whom and What Shall a Revolution Be Directed? ………………………………………………….. 158

5. Who Should Carry out the Revolution? ………………………………………………………………………. 158

6. A Programme Is Necessary …………………………………………………………………………………… 159

7. Final Aims of the Revolution Necessary Today ………………………………………………………………. 159

8. What Means and Methods Must not Be Used by Revolutionaries? …………………………………………... 160

8/1 Mass Extermination Devices ……………………………………………………………………………. 160

8/2 General Strike …………………………………………………………………………………………… 160

8/3 Conscription ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 161

8/4 Plunder and Requisitioning ……………………………………………………………………………… 162

8/5 Payment with Requisitioning Certificates or Inflated Paper Money ……………………………………. 162

8/6 A State of Siege …………………………………………………………………………………………. 163

8/7 Blockade Measures ……………………………………………………………………………………… 163

8/8 Measures Based upon the Principle of Collective Responsibility ………………………………………. 163

8/9 Annihilation of the Army of the Dictator ………………………………………………………………. 163

8/10 Torture, Rape and other Cruelties ………………………………………………………………………. 163

8/11 Arson ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 164

8/12 General Sabotage ………………………………………………………………………………………. 164

8/13 Treatment of all Officers and Public Servants of the Dictator as Enemies ……………………………. 165

8/14 The "No Pardon!" Practice as well as the Treatment of those who Were Conscripted against the

Revolutionaries as Enemies and Prisoners of War ……………………………………………………... 165

8/15 Unlimited Central Revolutionary Authority …………………………………………………………… 166

8/16 Espionage ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 166

8/17 Intoxication ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 166

8/18 Barricades ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 167

8/19 Flags ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 167

8/20 Abuse of Prisoners …………………………………………………………………………………….. 167

9. What Means and Methods Should Be Used by Libertarian Revolutionaries? ………………………………… 167

9/1 Strict Respect for Human Rights and the Natural Rights of Rational Beings …………………………….. 167

9/2 Organisational Measures …………………………………………………………………………………. 168

9/3 Military Measures …………………………………………………………………………………………. 171

a) The Revolution Should Begin with a Military Insurrection ……………………………………………… 171

b) Initial Meetings of Soldiers ……………………………………………………………………………….. 171

c) Secession from the Army and Establishment of the Militia ……………………………………………… 171

d) The First Small Actions of the Revolutionary Militia ……………………………………………………. 172

e) Amnesty and Outlawry …………………………………………………………………………………… 173

f) Peace Declaration Towards Foreign Countries …………………………………………………………… 174

g) Disarmament with Regard to Weapons which Infringe Human Rights ………………………………….. 174

h) Where Should the Revolution Start? ……………………………………………………………………… 176

i) Timing the Beginning of the Revolution ………………………………………………………………….. 177

j) How to Prevent a New Military Dictatorship …………………………………………………………….. 177

18

9/4 Economic Measures of the Revolutionaries ………………………………………………………………... 177

A) Monetary Revolution …………………………………………………………………………………... 177

a) Occupation and Closure of the Central Bank

b) Proclamation of:

the Repeal of Legal Tender & of the Monopoly Position of the Central Bank,

the Freedom to Issue Means of Payment and the Right to Engage in Clearing whenever this

is Possible. …………………………………………………………………………………………... 178

c) Establishment and Initiation of Numerous Clearing Centres and Banks of Issue,

Especially of Cooperative Banks of Retailers ………………………………………………………. 178

d) Proclamation of Freedom in the Choice of Standards of Value and Establishment

of a Free Gold Market and Introduction of the Gold Clearing Currency …………………………… 179

B) Financing of the Revolution …………………………………………………………………………….. 179

a) Some Remarks on the Importance of the Ability to Pay as Foundation

for a Successful Revolution …………………………………………………………………………... 179

b) What Is the Influence of a Revolution upon Payments and Credits? ………………………………... 180

c) Financing of a Fighting Revolutionary Militia Army ………………………………………………… 180

c/1 Cash Payments instead of Pillage ………………………………………………………………... 180

c/2 Issue of Tax Foundation Money …………………………………………………………………. 181

c/3 Tax Levies and Use of these Funds ………………………………………………………………. 181

c/4 Usage of Rare Metal Coins ………………………………………………………………………. 182

c/5 Issue of Shop Foundation Money and Clearing Certificates ……………………………………... 182

d) The Importance of the Monetary Revolution for the Financing and

the Victory of the Revolution ………………………………………………………………………… 183

e) Shortening of Wage Payment Periods ………………………………………………………………. 184

f) Financing of Larger Resistance Groups before he Outbreak of the General Revolution …………… 184

C) Various Economic and Social Reform Measures of the Revolutionaries ……………………………… 186

19

10. What Can Already Now Be Done in the Free Countries to Prepare a Revolution against a Dictatorship like that of the Soviets? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 193

10/1 The Social Reforms which Are to Be Realized in the Dictatorial States in a Revolutionary Way,

Are, first of all, to Be Realized in a Peaceful Way in the Relatively Free Countries …………………. 193

10/2 An Academy for Revolutionaries …………………………………………………………………….. 193

10/3 The Sketch of a Revolutionary Programme, here Supplied, Must Be further Developed ……………. 194

10/4 Publication of the Revolutionary Programme in the Countries under Despotic Regimes ……………. 194

10/5 Guaranties for the Rightful and Peaceful Intentions of the People in the Western Countries towards the

Oppressed under Dictatorships ………………………………………………………………………... 195

10/6 Unlimited Acceptance of Refugees and Deserters …………………………………………………… 195

10/7 Employment and Accommodation for Refugees and Deserters ……………………………………… 196

10/8 Establishment of Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities of Volunteers in the West and

Promotion of such Associations formed by Refugees and Deserters …………………………………. 197

10/9 Teaching the Language Prevailing in Despotically Governed Countries ……………………………… 198

10/10 Preparation of Trade Relations ………………………………………………………………………. 198

10/11 Storage and Smuggling in of Communication Kits …………………………………………………… 199

10/12 Unilateral Destruction of all Nuclear Weapons ……………………………………………………….. 199

10/13 Tyrannicide ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 201

10/14 Appeal to the Oppressed Population to Let themselves Be Trained, Militarily, by the

Dictators ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 201

11. Suggestions for Resistance Groups before the Outbreak of the General Revolution ………………………... 201

12. Tasks for the Resistance Groups …………………………………………………………………………….. 202

13. Open Word to the Soviet Government, the Rulers of Red China and to all other Despotic Regimes ……… 203

AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WORLD PEACE

AND THEIR CONDUCT AND PROGRAMME IN WAR AND PEACE ……………………………. 204

1. Is the Militia a Rightful Institution? …………………………………………………………………………... 205

2. Is the Militia Necessary for the Protection of Human Rights? ……………………………………………… 206

3. On the Objection that the Weapons Monopoly Must not Be Repealed ……………………………………… 207

4. General Aims and Particular Tasks of the Militia ……………………………………………………………. 209

4/1 Realisation and Protection of Human Rights and the Natural Rights of Rational Beings ……………….. 209

4/2 Resisting and Disarming Organizations Opposed to Human Rights ……………………………………... 210

4/3 Some Examples of Rights to Be Protected by the Militia ……………………………………………….. 210

4/4 Abolition of the Threat of Nuclear War ………………………………………………………………….. 212

4/5 Abolition of the Danger of War altogether ………………………………………………………………. 213

4/6 Tasks of the International Militia Federation …………………………………………………………….. 213

a) Support for the Rightful endeavours of the U.N. ……………………………………………………… 213

b) Reform of the U.N. …………………………………………………………………………………... 214

c) Abolition of Dictatorial Regimes …………………………………………………………………….. 214

d) Determining: Who is the Aggressor? ………………………………………………………………… 215

4/7 Abolition of Standing Armies ……………………………………………………………………………. 219

4/8 Decision on War and Peace ………………………………………………………………………………. 219

20

5. Structure and Organization of the Militia ……………………………………………………………………... 222

5/1 Local Organization ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 222

5/2 Voluntary Membership …………………………………………………………………………………... 222

5/3 Oath to Uphold Human Rights …………………………………………………………………………... 222

5/4 Autonomy of the Militia ………………………………………………………………………………… 223

5/5 Kind of Armament ………………………………………………………………………………………. 224

5/6 General Rights of Members of the Militia ……………………………………………………………….. 224

a) Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 224

b) Freedom of Speech and Press ………………………………………………………………………… 225

c) Right to Assemble and Associate ……………………………………………………………………… 225

d) Right to Petition ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 225

e) Freedom of Information ………………………………………………………………………………... 225

f ) Right and Duty to Keep Secrets ……………………………………………………………………….. 226

g) Individual Responsibility ………………………………………………………………………………. 226

h) Voluntarism ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 226

i) What Rights Will Be Restricted through the Duty to Resist and to Keep Secrets? …………………….. 226

5/7 The Military Obedience Arising out of the Right and Duty to Resist - and Its Limits …………………… 227

5/8 Election of Militia Officers ………………………………………………………………………………. 228

5/9 Recall of Militia Officers, in certain Cases, by their Subordinates ……………………………………… 230

5/10 Are Professional Soldiers Necessary? ………………………………………………………………….. 231

5/11 The Supreme Commander ……………………………………………………………………………… 231

5/12 Mobilising the Militia: The "On-The-Minute-Man" System …………………………………………… 231

5/13 Publicness of Aims, Meetings and Actions of the Militia .……………………………………………… 232

5/14 Part-time Soldiers, Unpaid ……………………………………………………………………………… 232

5/15 Support in Peace Time …………………………………………………………………………………… 232

5/16 Training and Exercises …………………………………………………………………………………… 233

5/17 Membership ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 233

a) Acceptance …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 233

b) Age Limit …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 234

c) Right to Leave ………………………………………………………………………………………… 234

d) Exclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 234

5/18 Age Structure of Different Units ………………………………………………………………………… 234

5/19 Military Penal Code of the Militia ………………………………………………………………………. 235

5/20 Jurisdiction ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 235

5/21 Insurance of Members …………………………………………………………………………………… 236

5/22 Promotion System ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 236

5/23 No Class Distinctions between Officers and Men …………………………………………………………. 237

6. Can the Militia Become a Threat to Human Rights? ……………………………………………………….. 237

7. How Should the Militia Be Established in the Free and Democratic States? ………………………………… 237

8. Relationship of the Newly Established Militias to the Armies of the Old Type ……………………………... 238

9. International instead of National Organization of the Militia ………………………………………………. 238

10. The Army of Cromwell: A Historical Precedent for the Militia Here Proposed ……………………………..239

11. Methods and Principles of Warfare Conducted by the Militia ………………………………………………. 240

11/1 Introduction : Why Must Peace Lovers Arm and Train themselves and Prepare for the

Conduct of a War? ……………………………………………………………………………………… 240

11/2 General Principle of the Militia for Conducting War ………………………………………………….. 241

11/3 What Actions Must not Be Committed by Militia Men? ………………………………………………. 241

a) Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 241

b) Treatment of all Soldiers, Officers and other Subjects of the Enemy Regime as Enemies ……… 241

c) Raids against Civilians and Constructions Serving mainly Civil Purposes ………………………… 241

21

d) The Taking and Punishment of Hostages …………………………………………………………... 242

e) Blockades ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 242

f) Wrongful Siege Measures …………………………………………………………………………… 242

g) Use of Mass Extermination Devices ………………………………………………………………… 242

h) Confiscation of Foreign Investments ………………………………………………………………… 242

i) Plunder, Requisitioning or Payment with Inferior Means of Payment ……………………………….. 243

j) Cruelties, Rapes, Arson ……………………………………………………………………………… 243

k) Scorched Earth Measures ……………………………………………………………………………. 243

l) Sabotage Acts (indiscriminate ones!) ………………………………………………………………... 243

m) Military Police ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 243

n) Compulsory Identity Cards in Occupied Territories ………………………………………………… 243

11/4 Warfare as Conducted by the Militia A Kind of Military Jiu Jitsu ………………………………………… 244

a) Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 244

b) Initiation of Military Insurrections and Revolutions against the Enemy Dictator ………………………. 244

c) Appeal to Desert, Directed to the Soldiers and Civilian Subject of the Dictator ………………………… 244

d) Special Negotiations with Officers on the other Side to Achieve their Cooperation …………………… 249

e) Separate Peace Treaties with whole Military Units of the Dictatorship …………………………………. 249

f) Establishment of Governments-in-Exile and Conclusion of Peace Treaties with them ………………….. 250

g) Details on the Proper Treatment of Deserters and Captured Conscripts ………………………………... 251

h) Employment and Accommodation for Deserters ……………………………………………………….. 251

i) Promotion of Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities formed by Defectors etc. ………………….. 252

j) Language Instruction in all Languages Prevailing in Dictatorial Countries …………………………….. 252

k) Food Drops instead of Bomb Raids ……………………………………………………………………. 252

l) Proclamation of Rightful War Aims …………………………………………………………………….. 253

m) One-Sided Peace Declaration ……………………………………………………………………………. 256

n) Timely Publication of the Programme of the Militia ……………………………………………………. 258

o) Tyrannicide ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 258

p) Observance of International Law and the International Law on Warfare, especially of the Hague

Convention, to the extent that they rest upon the recognition of Human Rights ………………………… 261

q) What Should Be Done instead of Taking Hostages? ……………………………………………………. 263

r) Action towards Nationalistic Terrorists ………………………………………………………………… 264

s) Treatment of Prisoners of War in the Old Sense ………………………………………………………… 265

t) To what Extent Would the Militia Use Destruction as a Military Means? ………………………………. 266

u) Measures to Prevent Rapes ………………………………………………………………………………. 269

v) Public Appeals as Weapons ……………………………………………………………………………… 270

11/5 Some Remarks on the Financing of the Warfare of the Militia …………………………………………… 272

22

D) ENLIGHTENING PROPAGANDA, WHERE POSSIBLE ………………………………………………… 277

Sec.VII: HOW CAN THE REFORM IDEAS ADVANCED IN THIS PROGRAMME BE SUFFICIENTLY SPREAD IN THE DEMOCRATIC STATES? ………………………………………………………………….. 277

1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………... 278

2. Discussion Centres to Promote the Free Exchange of Opinions ……………………………………………... 278

2/1 The Right of Men and Citizens to Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information ……………… 278

2/2 What Is Required to Promote the Free Exchange of Opinions? …………………………………………. 278

2/3 How Should Discussions in a Discussion Centre be organised to Facilitate Opinion Exchanges? ……… 279

2/4 Some Advantages of such Discussion Centres …………………………………………………………… 280

2/5 Some Details on these Centres ……………………………………………………………………………. 281

2/6 How Could the First Discussion Centre in a Large Town Be Established? ……………………………… 281

3. Meeting Centres in the Open Air ……………………………………………………………………………. 282

3/1 The Basic Proposal ………………………………………………………………………………………. 282

3/2 What Advantages Are Offered by such Places? ……………………………………………………… 282

3/3 On the Importance of such Meeting Places …………………………………………………………….. 283

3/4 Details on these Institutions and their Equipment ………………………………………………………. 284

3/5 Some Remarks on their Establishment …………………………………………………………………. 285

4. Magazines for the Free Exchange of Opinions ……………………………………………………………….. 285

4/1 For Whom Should such Magazines Be Published and what Is their Aim? ……………………………. 285

4/2 Why Are such Magazines Necessary? ………………………………………………………………….. 286

4/3 Are they Made Superfluous by the Fact that many Magazines Have Letters to the Editor? … ………… 287

4/4 Why Have such Magazines not yet Been Established? …………………………………………………. 287

4/5 Subjects for the Proposed Magazines …………………………………………………………………… 287

4/6 What Kind of Contributions Should these Magazines Publish Preferentially,

according to their Discretion?…………………………………………………………………………….. 288

4/7 Principles and Conditions for the Publication of Contributions Made by the Readers …………………. 288

4/8 Solution of the Problems Arising from the Limited Space Available for Contributions ………………. 289

4/9 Periodical Meetings of Readers …………………………………………………………………………. 290

4/10 How Should such Magazines Be Distributed? ………………………………………………………….. 290

4/11 Some Suggestions for the Establishment of such Magazines ………………………………………….. 291

4/12 Proposals on how to Finance them ……………………………………………………………………… 292

4/13 Some Characteristics of these Magazines which Will Facilitate their Financing ………………………. 293

5. Magazines for the Timely and Sufficient Announcement of all Lecture and Discussion Events at which

Guests Are Welcome (Meeting Calendars) …………………………………………………………………… 293

6. Archive of Social Reform Ideas and the Addresses of Social Reformers …………………………………… 294

6/1 The Importance of Social Reform Ideas …………………………………………………………………. 294

6/2 What Obstacles Exist for the Realisation of Social Reform Ideas? ……………………………………… 295

6/3 What Should Be Done to Facilitate the Realisation of Social Reform Ideas? …………………………. 298

6/4 What Particular Advantages Would this Archive Have to Offer? ……………………………………… 298

6/5 Principles and Conditions of the Archive ………………………………………………………………. 300

23

6/6 How Could this Archive Be Established? ………………………………………………………………… 300

6/7 The Archive here Proposed Is merely Part of a General Archive for Ideas and Talents ………………… 301

7. An Encyclopaedia of Wide-Spread Prejudices, Errors and Fallacies - which Obstruct Social Progress - together with the Best Refutations so far Found: for Use in all Discussions on Economic, Social & Political Problems. 301

7/1 On the Spread of Prejudices …………………………………………………………………………… 301

7/2 On the Importance of Prejudices ……………………………………………………………………….. 302

7/3 On the Ease of Accepting and Spreading Prejudices, Errors and Fallacies …………………………… 303

7/4 On the Difficulties of Attempts to Refute Prejudices, Errors and Fallacies …………………………… 304

7/5 What Is Required to Fight Prejudices? ………………………………………………………………….. 308

7/6 Proposal: Compilation and Publication of an Encyclopaedia of Wide-Spread Prejudices, Errors and Wrong

Conclusions together with their Best Refutations ……………………………………………………… 309

7/7 What Advantages would this Encyclopaedia Offer? …………………………………………………… 310

7/8 How Should It Be Established? …………………………………………………………………………. 312

7/9 How, Where, When and What For Should this Encyclopaedia Be Used? ……………………………… 313

7/10 Some Technical Details of this Planned Encyclopaedia ……………………………………………….. 313

7/11 Would this Encyclopaedia Render the above Discussed Tolerance & Experimental Freedom

Superfluous or vice versa? ……………………………………………………………………………… 314

8. Flow-Chart Discussions ……………………………………………………………………………………… 314

8/1 What Is a Flow-Chart Discussion? ……………………………………………………………………. 314

8/2 What Advantages Does it Offer? ………………………………………………………………………. 315

8/3 How Can it Be Carried Out? …………………………………………………………………………….. 316

9. Programme for a Genuinely Cultural Revolution ……………………………………………………………. 317

10. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 328

A P P E N D I X: ………………………………………… 329

I. Draft of a New Declaration of those Human Rights and Natural Rights of Rational Beings

• which Were so far Discovered …………………………………………………………………………. 330

II. Some Contributions to Explain the Proposal to Establish Exterritorial and Autonomous Communities

of Volunteers - in Order to Achieve World Peace …………………………………………………………… 350

1. Johann Gottlieb Fichte: "Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums ueber die Franzoesische

Revolution" (Contribution to Rectify Public Opinion on the French Revolution ), 1793,

Extract from Book 1, chapter 3. ……………………………………………………………………………… 350

2. P. E. DePuydt: "Panarchie" (Panarchy), Revue Trimestrielle, Brussels, 1860. ……………………………… 358

For updated French, German, Italian, English & Spanish texts see: www.panarchy.org

3. Herbert Spencer: Social Contract, 1850, Extract from chapters XIX and XXI. ……………………………… 369

4. Werner Ackermann, Appeal to Establish a Cosmopolitan Union, 1931, …………………………………….. 374

5. Ulrich von Beckerath: Draft for the next Peace Treaty with Russia, July 1933 ……………………………… 375

6. Edward Gibbon: The Laws of the Barbarians, an extract from vol. 4, chapter 38 of his famous work. ……… 379

7. Comparison of Anarchism with the New Social System Proposed in this Book …………………………… 380

24

III. Has Passive Resistance a Chance for Success? …………………………………………………………… 382

IV. Some Remarks on the Theory that the Security of the "Free World" could be guaranteed by the deterrent

effect of Nuclear Weapons ………………………………………………………………………………… 386

V. A Summary of the Main Points of this Book ………………………………………………………………. 390

VI. Alphabetical Index ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 393

==================================================================================

SOME FILLERS ADDED TO THE MICROFICHE EDITION OF THIS BOOK: ……………………… 447 - 483

1.) LIBERTARIANS FOR LIFE: The Abortion Debate from the Libertarian Pro-Life Perspective, 16pp ……. 448

The articles are listed on page 448.

2.) Edwin Vieira, Jr., The "Right of Abortion": A Dogma in Search of a Rationale. A response to Murray Rothbard,

Tibor Machan & Walter Block, n.d., 8 pages ………………………………………………………………… 464

There is a connection between abortion and warn in the readiness to kill innocents under all kinds of excuses,

but I will not try to elaborate on this connection here and now, having dealt with the subject at some length

elsewhere before, in my PEACE PLANS series. - J.Z., 7.12.08.

3.) LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING, Alphabetical Author Listing, MARCH 1982, 12 pp ……. 472

Added here because it was added to PEACE PLANS 61-63. Four other items, that were fiched in PP 61-65,

are still omitted here. They are listed on page 447. I have probably microfilmed them somewhere else.

J.Z., 7.12.02.

==================================================================================

Another self-advertising which followed the above Contents list in PP 61-63: (The figures then given are naturally dated by now:

LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING WANTS YOUR BOOK MANUSCRIPTS AND ESSAYS for non-exclusive microfiche publishing.

I charge for this at present $ 25 per 98 pages. For this you get 25 "free" copies and can at any time order more, per ordinary mail, at $ 25 per 100.

All other kinds of libertarian material, previously published but out of print or in low impressions only - and not under copyrights restrictions, at least for this publishing - is also wanted, under the same conditions.

Sponsor your favourite libertarian literature as cheaply. Help to make it available in this form upon demand and prevent it from every getting out of print again.

A 52 page introductory booklet to micrographics, written especially for libertarians, offset: "GONE FICHING - FOR LIBERTY", will be sent by ordinary mail for $ 1.

PEACE PLANS No. 46, on fiche, listing in detail the contents of PEACE PLANS Nos. 1-45 and also the publishing programme of Libertarian Microfiche Publishing, will be sent free, upon request, by ordinary mail.

Microfiche publishing, through me or others, offers you a very cheap opportunity for the self-publishing of books, pamphlets and magazines. ALL YOU NEED, or anyone else, to read all such material, is a CHEAP microfiche reader.

(All the rest con be done for you by one of the numerous micrographic agencies, fast, well and compared with printing, very cheap. ENQUIRE!)

You CAN GET A GOOD ENOUGH MICROFICHE READER, either an outdated model or a second-hand machine, from as low as $ 45 onwards. Look around. E.g. Gordon Enterprises, 'Microfilm Division, P.O. Box 3914 North Hollywood, Cal. 91 609, specialise on reconditioned machines and offer a comprehensive catalog which is almost as good as the market survey by the National Micrographics Association.

MY "Gone Fiching for Liberty" lists cheap and small readers and literature on fiche or film that is of interest to libertarians. These lists will be expanded in future PEACE PLANS.

Upon large literature orders some firms even offer you free microfiche readers. What are you waiting for?

On microfiche all libertarian thoughts, ideas, proposals and discoveries, all addresses and connections you need, can soon become available to you and all others, very cheaply - with your cooperation.

Be With It! For Freedom In Our Time!

==================================================================================

25 A

____________________________________________________________________________________________

25 B

According to their very nature, most human rights are suitable only for rational beings. Thus nobody can unconditionally claim them who is so irrational as to persistently and significantly offend against any human right.

When human rights are conceded to tyrants and their henchmen, world peace remains threatened. When members of totalitarian groups are conceded the "right" to bear arms, the human rights of all others are endangered. The practice of a human right would thus endanger human rights. Such a contradiction can only be solved by recognition that most human rights apply only to adult and rational human beings and not to irrational ones.

As irrational one would have to consider everyone from whom one would have to expect, judging by his past actions, that he would continue to offend against human rights - at least in the persons of others (in cases of people

claiming certain rights for themselves). 1

In some theories this idea has already been expressed - although the general conclusion has only been rarely drawn, due to the prevailing egalitarian bias and the tendency to make unjustified generalisations. Thus article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10/12/48 states:

In practice, this limited applicability of human rights, i.e. to rational beings only, has been largely realized by the outlawry of national socialists in many countries and by condemning criminals (i.e., people who had offended

against the rights to life, physical inviolability and property ) to some kind of slave existence for a certain period, also by depriving children and madmen of certain rights.

The human rights draft in the appendix (and previously published in Peace Plans No. 4) tried to distinguish between human rights for all human beings and natural rights of rational beings. (It was again reproduced, together with about 100 other private human rights drafts in PEACE PLANS 589 & 590. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

In recent years Ayn Rand has repeatedly expressed similar ideas. So far, alas, she considered it unnecessary to base a new code of natural law on this idea. I hope that some of her admirers will go beyond her in this, perhaps using my draft in Peace Plans No. 4 as a basis for discussion.

Every rational being may freely do anything at his own expense and risk - not only in his private but also in his social, economic and political life - that does not infringe the human and natural rights of other persons.

Nobody may rightly be forced to adjust his life according to the dictates of a temporarily predominating theory. Thus, for instance, the State is not authorised to interfere, by means of old or new laws, with scientific and volun-tarily conducted experiments of a social, juridical, economic or political kind - as long as by such experiments only the life, health, property and liberty of the participating people could be endangered.

This principle is almost axiomatic. It follows from the idea of "rights" and was, in another form, already expressed in many codifications of human rights. Instances :

French Constitution of 3/9/1791, Article 4:

Irrational people can hardly be considered as full members of society.

The idea of imposed classes and second-class citizenship has nothing to do with this natural and inherent distinction.

26

Similarly (but with the important distinction between harm & wrong!), the French Constitution of 24/6/1793 states in article 6:

Likewise, article 2 of the 1946 Constitution of Hessen:

The Bill of Rights of the German Federal Republic, of 1949, also states in Article 2/1:

Many more such instances could be given. Usually some statist & territorialist qualifications are added. I have no intention to discuss these here, while stating the pure principle.

Realisation of this expanded principle of tolerance, or rather expanded understanding of tolerance, would help to establish and preserve world peace for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that most ideologies would soon lose their aggressiveness if they could already now be applied by minority groups, practising for, to and among themselves the new system, while living peacefully among and with the majority which, for itself, would practise its own preferred system.

Liberation wars and revolutionary struggle would, obviously, become unjustified and unnecessary where this principle is thoroughly practised. No obviously rational and just motives for war or revolution would remain. The power urge of minorities would be exhausted in the struggle to apply their own ideals in practice and the power urge of individuals could be effectively countered in such a society.

The power addicts would, moreover, most likely be deposed before too long, by some of their own followers, who would no longer be satisfied with promises for the far future but would, instead, insist upon results, upon obvious successes there and then, and there would be no excuses for not supplying them - and, mostly, like all other politicians, they could not.

This extended principle of tolerance could be realized by the recognition of the right of individuals to secede from States like from a church and to form exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers.

Every rational being has the right to secede from every unnatural coercive association, including unions, parties, armies and the State itself - without thereby losing a single human right or natural right of rational beings.

Those who seceded have the right to form new and autonomous associations everywhere, even within and on the territory so far exclusively claimed by the State they have left or by other States, excluding only the private property of the members of other associations, provided that their own associations are also voluntary, i.e. that they themselves respect the right to secede, and that, consequently, they pass and apply only exterritorial or personal laws among themselves and fully respect the human rights and natural rights of the members of the remaining State authority and those of the members of other exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers.

I hold that the "social contract", properly interpreted, forms one "association" one cannot rightly secede from. I believe that it is not a contract concluded voluntarily and explicitly between individuals but, instead, one automatically, naturally and inevitably formed by association, one into which every rational being is "forced" by his very nature: A tacit agreement to mutually assist each other in case of a threat to their human or natural rights.

Some have over-simplified, over-generalised or over-extended it by calling it "duty", "solidarity" or "loyalty". (Discussion of these alternatives must be left to some other time and place.) In the above sense the "social contract" is more than a mere herd instinct (by being based on moral sense and moral judgement).

27

It is also less formal than a written constitutional obligation, yet, I believe, it is morally more binding than the latter. It does not require self-sacrifice as a duty. Nevertheless, in some cases, it requires some readiness to risk one's life, liberty and property in the defence of basic rights.

I only state this position here as comment to the above. Explanation and defence of this idea of a "social contract" must be left to some other essay. (Obviously, no one has as yet formally signed such a contract. That should not keep us from pondering its optimal wording. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

As unnatural and coercive associations I would classify all those whose dissolution or reduction by means of the repeal of their compulsory membership would in no way infringe the human rights or natural rights of rational beings.

After the recognition and realisation of the right of individuals to secede, these unnatural and coercive associations would gradually disappear or be dissolved, at least to a large extent. Although their name and formal structure might remain, their unnatural and coercive nature would disappear completely. What would remain of them in future would, in essence, be no different from that of any of the new volunteer communities: They would also be reduced to being (or advance to being) exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, retained by the consensus of those who did not desire any changes for themselves but wanted to keep all the old laws and institutions. One of the differences would be that now these consenting victims would have to bear the costs and risks of their decisions exclusively themselves. There would be no faster way to teach them! Moreover, they would, more than the other and new communities, be inclined to remain organised along the old national lines, crossing them only when there are national minorities across the former State borders.

States, unions and armed forces would then be reduced to associations of volunteers. They could no longer force institutions and services upon dissenters - who would have left them. The seceded people would either organise such services for themselves or would find it profitable to do without them.

Even in case of war and especially in case of a war, no coercion may be used, in any form and under any pretext, to induce people to retain their membership in any State or exterritorial and autonomous community. (The attempt would provoke the enmity of all other such communities in the world.)

In case some individuals or minority groups not only remained neutral but actively supported an enemy regime, then they would, naturally, have to expect to be treated according to the international laws of war. Fortunately, for a variety of reasons stated below, these cases will become extremely rare.

In the relatively free Western countries, the right to secede could be realised peacefully, e.g. by referendums, but in countries like the Soviet Union only by a revolution.

In Western countries all enemies of nuclear weapons would be likely to secede from States armed with nuclear weapons or involved with such allies. As soon as most citizens are sufficiently enlightened on the immorality and the dangers, not only of the aggressive or defensive but also of the deterrent use of nuclear weapons, moreover, also on the possibilities of defending oneself without nuclear destructive devices against an enemy armed with them, the majority of the citizens would be likely to secede. Then, in referendums among all the inhabitants of large territories (seeing that everyone's rights would be involved), the destruction of the nuclear devices of the remaining States would be resolved upon.

This "interference with the internal affairs" of these States would be justified because one would have to expect that, in case of war, these atomic weapons would attract the enemy's atomic weapons like super-strong magnets and could thus lead to the incidental murder of all or most people in these territories. Thus the right of individuals to secede would lead to the - if necessary -

28

unilateral destruction of nuclear weapons in the West.

In the Soviet Union, the declaration of secession, by individuals constituting the majority of the population, or at least by a decisive minority, could only take place during a revolution. Indeed, it would be an important part of a rightful revolution.

The declaration of secession of the first 10,000 Russian soldiers and officers, e.g. of a division of the Red Army, and the possibilities it opens up for the future for a free development of all Russian minorities and of the majority, would most likely, provided only a detailed and rational revolutionary programme has previously been well publicised, lead to further such declarations of secession in form of a chain reaction. By practising secession and by publicising the number and the different kinds of secessions, the revolution could spread more rapidly. The Soviet Union would soon find itself deserted by most of its former subjects and would, most likely, be unable to defend its former wrongful power with the remaining citizens and soldiers. (At the some time, its remaining rightful authority, over voluntary members only, would become the concern of all other exterritorial and autonomous associations in the world, who should not hesitate to offer their recognition and trade and assistance, should they be required. If it would not exceed this limited rightful authority, the former enemy of all rational beings would become, if not the friend of all, at least recognized as a neutral community, that would only try to spread by persuasion and demonstration of its ideals.)

The subversion of the nuclear strength philosophy brought about by the ideology of tolerant exterritorial and autonomous organization of volunteers, would also extend to those persons supposed to guard and use nuclear devices. The remaining few fanatics would not be likely to have sufficient time, opportunity or convincing military strength left to successfully guard a dictatorial regime's nuclear weapons against destruction by the secessionists. Against revolutionaries in the own country, a regime can hardly use these weapons successfully, i.e., without endangering itself. Moreover, the revolution in the own country would prevent it from attacking external enemies, particularly when these, due to certain actions in these other countries, have rather become friends and allies to the majority of one's former subjects and when there is an honourable and safe way out. "Build your enemy golden bridges!" (Compare the proposals below on revolution, disarmament, tyrannicide, resistance and outlawry combined with amnesty offers.

This experimental freedom would reduce ideological tensions and conflicts of economic interests between antagonistic power blocks. State capitalists (Bolsheviks of Soviets) for instance, would no longer be able to condemn private capitalism completely once the latter permitted tolerant State capitalistic experiments.

Capitalism, on the other hand, would hardly blame the Soviets in the economic sphere, if the Soviets permitted tolerant private capitalistic experiments.

Whosoever can realize his programme already in this way would not find followers for an attempt to usurp State power - or only relatively few. Thus he would not acquire a degree of power which might enable him to attempt to forcefully impose his programme upon other States or communities.

Adolf Damaschke defended the experimental approach in his "Geschichte der Nationaloekonomie" (History of National Economy), vol. II, p. 10, in a comment on Considerant:

29

In accordance with the old saying "If you want peace, prepare for war!", every State participates in the arms race and thereby, and almost inevitably, brings about war in the long run. (The war preparations discussed in this book are of quite a different kind, as the reader will see later.) Only in a few cases have arms races not led to war in the end: In no more than 1% of the cases recorded!

Otto Lehmann Russbuelt, in: "Wie Gewinnen Wir den Frieden?" (How Can We Win Peace?) brought a statistic on this:

Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers could do without the "safeguard" provided by arms races. They do not have to be afraid of each other. If their case is right then they will finally win, without weapons, through the free choice of their "customers", who will demand and get the standards they like for their dealings. This is probably the most important form of "consumer sovereignty" for our time.

Moreover, they would not be headed by "sovereign" governments which could initiate a war at any time. Thus no one would have to be under arms against them. Neither do they possess any serious reasons or motives for wanting to make war against each other. (Compare the corresponding sections below.)

Furthermore, in a society based upon such communities, hardly anyone would get a chance to acquire genuinely dictatorial powers. In case these societies would have to fight a dictator, in exceptional cases, then (seeing that they are not States without a programme, which can only rely on the superior force of their conscripts and weapons) they would possess, by their very nature, an attractive liberation and peace programme. With this they would not have to beat a dictator in an arms race but could turn his own forces against him and could, thereby, defeat him. (Compare the sections below on Military Jiu Jitsu, Military Strength and Desertion.)

Today's governments are unable to carry out a sufficient nuclear (etc.) disarmament and to control it effectively. A complete nuclear disarmament would presuppose that not a single person would remain in power who believes that nuclear weapons offer strength to his nation and thereby security. (Compare, for instance how much this belief prevails still even among libertarians!)

As long as sovereign States continue, they will rightly fear each other. This means that more than one such person will be among those in power. Any ruler, in any State, has sufficient opportunities to hide a number of atomic weapons "to prevent his fatherland becoming defenceless". No controller or control authority or army of inspectors, could prevent that. A relatively light and small device, containing a few pounds of heavy metal, can be much easier

hidden in the territory of any State than the proverbial needle in a haystack. As everyone in power knows that, none of them disarms seriously or takes at least the own disarmament proposals serious.

As long as governments of the present type continue to exist, they must be armed to protect themselves from each other - for the same reason that beasts of prey need sharp teeth and claws against each other. What is needed is not voluntarily given up.

Even if a government seriously tried to achieve disarmament: its army of public servants would be all too small compared with the magnitude this task, regardless how excessive their numbers otherwise are.

30

It could not control every corner of its national territory in this way.

Only the alerted, motivated and properly equipped people themselves could cope with this task.

Exterritorial and autonomous organizations of volunteers, once they may be freely set up, would enable and motivate them to undertake this task. At first, the abolition of motives for war would lead to a stand-still of the arms race. This would be further guaranteed by the impossibility to finance a further arms race. No one would pay for it voluntarily, under the new circumstances.

Moreover, no one would want to remain the subject of a government which would turn its subjects into attractive targets for nuclear weapons - by keeping such weapons itself.

Another aspect is that today the governments still possess a monopoly for measures like disarmament. Due to the weapons monopoly, in combination with the monopoly for armed organizations, the nuclear weapons stores and the manufacturing facilities for nuclear weapons (including "peaceful" nuclear power stations and nuclear research reactors) can today be "protected" against ten-thousands of unarmed citizens. At the same time, the governments cannot offer their citizens sufficient protection against the own atomic weapons and those of enemy regimes. Such a defence is altogether impossible according to the state of science today.

Thus anti-people weapons are under armed protection against the people and the people are not under protection but under constant threats, even extermination threats, which may be carried out with the "most modern means". (Cheap, instant and "scientific" extermination camp packages!) Consequently, the citizens will have to arm and organise themselves properly, that is, with rightful means, in military organizations for the protection of human rights, in militias and exterritorial and autonomous organizations of volunteers - in order to be able to take nuclear disarmament and any other important disarmament into their own hands. (Compare Peace Plans 16-18, especially appendix. 20 & 21.)

To secretly prepare nuclear armaments is possible only for territorial States. Only they have the power to completely screen large areas from the outer world and the financial resources (due to taxation) to build and maintain nuclear arms factories in them.

Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, on the other hand, would not possess this kind of power. Moreover, their establishment would do away with secret military zones for nuclear armament purposes. Thus such establishments could hardly be kept secret.

Moreover, their members would live intermixed within the same territory and thus neither would want to nor could keep such preparations secret from each other or would want to engage in them at all. If an attempt were made, it could easily be defeated by an armed citizenry jealous of its rights and concerned for its security and survival.

That once, in future, when present nuclear developments are allowed to proceed unhindered, even private people, with little efforts and costs, could produce nuclear devices, does not refute the above statements. Such a development presupposes that the State, initially and forcefully, pushed nuclear arms and promoted nuclear research and nuclear power development. Moreover, the mere existence of States of the present type "forced" people to think along the present lines.

Territorial, coercive, compulsory and centralised collectivism leads automatically to mass extermination devices. Once the kind of "progress" has been achieved, after which even schoolboys, one afternoon, could construct an atomic weapon, we will be lost anyhow. Any immature, irresponsible, criminal or mad person could then start the holocaust. There are always all too many such persons amongst us, in all positions and in all professions. The present Statist system and the present nuclear science developments play right into their hands. Our hope lies only in this stage never being reached, in nuclear devices being so expensive and laborious to construct and deliver that only criminals in government can afford them. Then we can get rid of these devices together with the criminal governments.

31

Under the political system resulting from unrestricted individual secessions, and presuming that the construction and delivery of mass extermination devices would still require considerable costs and efforts, the attempts to produce such devices would soon be found out and considered and treated as the criminal attempts against the people of the world, which they are. Such madmen would stand out like heretics did in former centuries, e.g. among pious Catholics or like religious ratbags among enlightened atheists.

Public opinion would no longer welcome or tolerate nuclear and similar arms as necessary evils but regard them instead as the unmitigated evils and senseless devices which they are. This would have far-reaching effects - because then the public would no longer be confined to mere protest actions but could easily mobilise an effective, even armed and military resistance (with conventional means - against aspiring mass murderers).

But we have to be aware that to prevent development and "progress" of science towards a day when nuclear destructive devices will be within the reach of e.g., schoolboys, it will not be sufficient merely to destroy nuclear bomb factories and nuclear reactors and official military nuclear research. Until the danger is abolished (if ever) all nuclear and corresponding chemical and biological research will have to be interdicted. The survival of man depends on that.

Or would you rather want to kill off all people with violent inclinations and strong power urges at a tender age, before they could do serious harm? Do you defend the right of toddlers to have free access to hand- weapons in their cots and playpens? Do you believe that all "scientific" efforts ought to be unrestrained, even those concerned with mass torture, mass destruction and mass murder? If that is the case, just carry on as you do now. I am not sorry for being emotional and using strong language on such subjects.

No "enemy territory" would any longer exist which one could attack with atomic or other mass murder devices. The members of any exterritorial and autonomous association of volunteers would live distributed over the whole world. Thus mass extermination devices, if one would use them, would always kill at least some of the own members. Moreover, one would hit not only enemies but sympathisers or neutrals whose associates thereafter would automatically become fierce enemies of whosoever used a mass extermination device.

In this respect one has to remember that the avenues opened up by individual secessionism for former enemies to live peacefully next door to each other (and yet independent and legally and juridically and in their life style separated), would also break down emigration and immigration barriers, so that people would more and more live intermixed with each other, like they do already, to a large extent, in cosmopolitan cities.

Moreover, the defensive advantage obtained by "enemies" living next door (but merely doing their things to and for themselves) might lead to a complete reversal of present policies: Aliens and foreigners, rather than being excluded, restricted and persecuted, would be more likely welcomed and even invited and sponsored - as a security measure!

While it is true that many dictators would not hesitate to kill some of their own subjects, also (Compare the ca. 10,000 Christians in Hiroshima and the 1,000 soldiers of the Allies in German P.O.W. camps, wiped out by the 'Dam Busters'), dictators would hardly exist any longer under the new conditions. (See below.) Moreover, if they did exist, they would no longer have easy access to nuclear devices. Furthermore, they could hardly overlook that their use of mass murder devices anywhere in the world, where the members of many different groups live intermingled, and yet legally separated, in independent volunteer communities, would rally not only the survivors of the former enemies against them but practically the whole world. Thus they would have hardly any chance to "win". This knowledge would help to prevent such mass murder actions. Today's territorial nationalism hasn't got this inbuilt safety factor.

Moreover, most citizens would no longer recognise any motive for the possession of nuclear devices as rightful. Thus they would see to it that no one could any longer dispose of nuclear weapons. Everyone could then easily see that his ideal social, political and economic order could be realised anywhere without any fight, without conquering power first - although initially only

32

among his followers and, later on, only among the additional converts. Everyone could always entertain the hope that, if he becomes successful with his experiments, then, one day, the majority would follow his lead. Thus neither the leaders nor the followers would see or could justify a "need" for mass-destruction and mass-murder devices. Under these conditions any violent attempts would become self-defeating, more than ever before.

One should also take into consideration that in future no State could, by means of conscription and taxation, put so many divisions into the field against us or anyone that, according to the ruling opinion - one could defeat such a host only by mass murderous devices like nuclear weapons.

There would no longer be any government territory whose "territorial integrity" is to be defended nor any external enemies against whom a military defence would be required. There would not be any enemy territory, either, which one could attack.

The exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers are personal law associations and not territorial organisations!

Moreover, even in the transitional stage, during defensive and liberation wars or uprising against territorial and totalitarian States, the tolerant practice of exterritorial autonomy on the own side (and the intelligent application of the opportunities thereby offered in times of wars & revolutions), would constitute an attractive peace, liberation, revolution and war programme, attractive even for the soldiers of the enemy regime, so that such wars could be rapidly brought to a victorious end, with very little bloodshed. More on this below.

If one looks closely at past and threatening wars, one will have to come to the conclusion that the danger of war continues largely because of the division of the Earth's surface among several areas where these territorial States have exclusive legislative, juridical and tax-gathering powers.

Only the authority of the government of a territory to dispose of it, its resources and its citizens, allows the concentration of power required to conduct a modern war. If one imagines a condition where nowhere any territorial State survived, or only a single World State (or several exterritorial World Federations!), then and under these special conditions no national war could any longer be imagined but at most a civil war. And even the danger of these would be greatly reduced, as we will see later on. (Individual secessionism makes "one man revolutions" or self-help in all spheres possible and with them peaceful and gradualist reformism in any desired direction of "doing one's own thing" to and for oneself.)

Another aspect of the same present territorial political "reality" are the "frontiers". After exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers have been introduced all over the world, no "frontiers" in the old political and military sense would any longer "exist", not even as lines on maps.

Without frontiers to delineate military establishments, encircling tax-gathering and juridical areas monopolised by power groups, a war can hardly be imagined.

Why would the frontiers fall? Simply because the new communities are, like churches, personal law associations, not tied to any particular territory, with members everywhere. (They only "territory" they would possess would be the private real estate of their voluntary members, as long as such private property is still widely recognized as exclusive. More on this below.)

The inhabitants of any section of this globe would then no longer be subjected to any particular government imposed juridical system, to any particular national "sovereignty" which, supposedly, has to be protected by military borders and defence preparations. Why should a border be guarded any longer and against whom, when legal uniformity (laws equally applicable to all in a territory) is no longer the ideal, when it has been replaced by a moral or ethical order, within a frame work set by individual human rights, an order which, according to the nature of the organisations involved, is peaceful, harmonious and self-perpetuating without preventing any genuine progress, when everyone can live, undisturbed, under the own or self-chosen laws, anywhere, anytime?

33

Civil wars would become a rare occurrence because the choice would no longer merely be between either domination or submission.

Only on a voluntary basis would this kind of relationship still persist, as in some marriages, while they last.

In question would be only the toleration of the independent and tolerant activities of still another one among numerous diverse groupings and this at a time when the practice and science of tolerance for tolerant actions has been highly developed and most people have already realised its benefits in their daily private and social lives.

The future tolerant social system, by its very nature, offers the possibility of a lasting peaceful coexistence between the most varied social systems. The more absurd the system practised by any of the numerous minorities - or by a majority in an area - would be, the more the people involved would be hard at work striving to turn it into a success (until they have learned their lesson). Consequently, all the less energies they would have left for attempts to impose it upon others.

On the other hand, if they are very successful, then they would hardly have to advertise their successes. The people among whom they live could hardly help noticing the advantages of their new system and would join in droves, moving away from all less successful systems. Again, the participants would be disinclined to impose their system upon others.

They would be too busy showing the ropes to the newcomers. They could also hope that everyone in the world who would sympathise with their system would ultimately join up with them, anyhow. Just like the various religious groups still seem to believe that finally all others would join them.

Revolution as well as terrorist acts are only last desperate attempts of people who see no chances for success at all in the existing peaceful alternatives. Libertarians in the West, who were engaged for a while in political struggles, will understand their frustrations. The party, election and parliamentary representative process is tied to the views of a relatively unenlightened majority whose opinions can only be slowly changed and rarely for the better. The chances offered in this way are indeed legitimate but too small, too small for many who want to see certain reforms or liberties within their lifetime. These institutions are suitable for conservation of whatever is desired by some or many but unsuitable for rapid reforms and radical changes. Moreover, it would not be wise to practise the latter immediately among the majority, particularly when there are volunteers who want to take whatever risks and costs are involved. Thus the discontent of potential revolutionaries and terrorists can be directed into constructive channels. Their creative energies would also be released and thereby they would be pacified, enlightened, or given their chance to enlighten the majority, which would rarely ever be persuaded by mere theories but is capable of imitating successful actions.

Common sense should have told us long ago that in the social sciences as well as in the natural ones and in tech-nology, no progress or experiment should be made dependent upon a majority vote - whenever the human and natural rights of the majority are not threatened. After all, every progress so far was conceived by individuals and promoted initially only by minorities. People who are not only free to talk and listen, write and read, but also free to act, tolerantly, are very unlikely to become rebels or terrorists. As Friedrich Schiller once said:

Communists of the Soviet type threaten us with world revolution because they realize that by propaganda for their system, on its own, they cannot win. At the same time, they do have a chance today for their combined propaganda and coercion system because all their practical failures can well be hidden behind national frontiers from most of the voters in democracies.

The inclination of communists towards subversion, sabotage, terrorism and revolution or military conquest and domination would be reduced if we permitted them (They would have the natural right to do so only if they were rational beings and thus recognised and respected the human and natural rights of others!) to conduct, at their own expense and risk, any kind of communist experiment among themselves, of a social, economic and political type, in the West, in the form of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers.

34

This would also deprive them of any pretence that they would have to resort to arms in order to fight down our opposition. Their own followers would ask: Why should we fight the capitalists when they invite us to live as communists? What better refutation could there be for the class warfare doctrine?

For those communists who initially could not cope with this kind of opportunity, being misled into believing that their kind of system has to be conducted by large-scale territorial bureaucracies, we could even set up some advisory services. (This reminds me of the stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius, who advised to set up advisory services for suicide candidates which would offer information on the most painless methods of doing away with oneself.)

Indeed, the West has so far hardly ever fought against the communist ideology as such. (On the contrary, its governments have copied all too much from it.) Its opposition was mainly reserved to the threat of a communist dictatorship (exerted by other governments) against the "own" nationals. (At the same time they were all too tolerant of communist dictatorships across national borders.)

The rightful part of this tolerance of the West ought merely to be extended. Thus the Western societies should presently offer to communists, and similarly ignorant and misled social re-formers, unlimited opportunities to enlighten themselves by the application of their nonsensical beliefs among themselves. Even fanatics will finally learn from experience - as long as they are not opposed in their tolerant actions and thus turned into martyrs for lost causes. Presently, the Western governments almost "force" the left-wing radicals to consider violent "solutions" and promote such attempts by the very efforts used to repress them. Exterritorial and autonomous communities of communist volunteers, based upon individual secessionism, would act as safety valves.

Moreover, their experiments would enlighten those who would otherwise fall victims to communist propaganda. Their failures would reduce their numbers so much that they would tend to become a harmless minority, even if they remained addicted to violence, as long as they have no longer access to mass extermination devices. (This is a problem largely solved by the same system of voluntarism. See above and below.)

The domineering and expansionist tendency and practice of States has been called imperialism. Some people's hunger for power is as insatiable as the hunger of others for material possessions. The mere existence of power centres attracts the power hungry individuals and makes the further concentration of power relatively easy. How could a. boxer become a world champion if he had not only to fight and defeat the other champions but, instead, every man in the world?

The existing powers of States allow them to conduct wars of conquest against weaker States. Afterwards, the subjected people, sooner or later, alone or in association with others, try to regain their independence in revolutions and liberation wars.

Merely for this reason are territorial States frequently at war with each other. (There are many other motives and we have to remove them one by one or at least consider them one by one.)

Once the people are everywhere separated merely into exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, then they could no longer organise for and conduct aggressive wars nor would they have the least wish to do so. All of them would have all the self-rule they desire.

Moreover, they would have the chance for an unlimited expansion of their favourite system, in a completely peaceful way, by means of individuals freely leaving their old associations and joining those they believe to be more successful.

Naturally, seeing that all the participants are still only human beings, there would not be perfect peace and harmony as a result. For instance, some slander, intrigues, fraud, and loud arguments would remain, even some violence on an individual level, leading to some police and court actions. But even they would be reduced in number because there would be many less frustrations. More important is that the large-scale, enforced, organized and collectivist violence of national and imperialist wars would be avoided or rendered impracticable.

Only in the dreams of some of the power-hungry ones would it still continue. But even these would have more chances than they have now, to become top dogs or cocks on a dung hill, in one or the other volunteer community. While there they would do their jobs as well as is expected from them, they would find much more loyalty and obedience among their members than they could rightfully hope for now, anywhere else or among any other people. To that extent the "great leaders" would be liberated as well.

35

Under these new conditions nobody would any longer be able to be a "man in power" in today's sense. (See e.g. under dictatorship and decision on war and peace.)

No exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers could arm against the others without this fact being very soon noticed and all such attempts being stopped. People who live next door to them, or even in the same house or flat, could hardly fail to notice their irrational preparations. They would be the potential victims of such preparations, seeing that they are members of other communities, and would regard and treat the perpetrators as the madmen they are.

If the preparations could reach the stage where taxation and conscription might threaten the members of such a community, its taxpayers and young men would secede in large numbers.

One should also keep in mind that motives for conquests would disappear in a situation where no nation could any longer lay any exclusive claim to any territory, a claim now generally recognized as authorising it to prevent others from using "its" territory. Whatever armed forces such a community would still have, would desert it in large numbers and rather ally themselves with those about to be attacked. They would not be prepared to sacrifice their lives for senseless purposes. National interests, reasonably defined, would not be harmed by their secession and desertion but, on the contrary, would rather be safeguarded.

In short, the system would offer full freedom for every anti-imperialist and no chances for the imperialist and would in this be very different from the present one.

Militarism (excessive stress of the tasks and institutions of the armed forces, especially the application of their organisational forms and methods to other institutions of the State and the people, also: the excessive influence of the armed forces upon politics) would, as a result of the introduction of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, merely enrich the collection of outdated isms. Nobody would any longer pay taxes for the upkeep of a military machine or the present type. (See under voluntary taxation.) An absolute obedience can no longer be enforced among militia men who are only part-time soldiers, elect and can recall their officers and are sworn to uphold and fight for nothing but human rights and natural rights of rational beings. (See below.)

Moreover, there would no longer be any powerful external enemy regimes whose existence might serve to justify the continuance of large standing armies. Furthermore, anyone becoming dissatisfied with any government which in his opinion would be too militaristic, could easily withdraw his support from it by seceding from this community. All these old notions are merely the symptoms of the present type of territorial and coercive States and would disappear with this disease.

The replacement of States by exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers (peacefully, by means of individual secessionism) would prevent the continued wrongful application of the principle of collective responsibility in many cases. Its wrong application has frequently led to wars or rendered them unnecessarily severe. For instance, the Second World War became a World War only by the Allies wrongly holding all Germans responsible for the crimes of the Hitler Regime, for instance by bombing the German civilian population, by not coming to any agreement with the opposition against Hitler, by not recognising a German government-in-exile and by treating all prisoners, although most of them had been conscripts, as enemies. (One of the most absurd instances was the internment of German refugees from the Nazis in England - instead of recruiting them for a war of liberation.)

History and the conduct of national wars is overloaded with such examples.

The U.S. are largely armed with nuclear "weapons" only because most Americans consider all "Russians" as communists. How otherwise could one conceive the idea and persist in it to arm with weapons of which a single one, if used, could possibly kill millions of subjugated Russians (and other subjugated nationals, over a hundred different ones in almost any area), among them ten-thousands of fanatical enemies of the Soviet-Regime and only a few thousand convinced communists? If the facts were otherwise, the Soviet dictators would not

36

have to suppress liberty of speech, press, association and assembly in order to remain in power and the members of the Communist Party would not only constitute a small minority. National genocidal policies are here based on the unfounded beliefs of the most uninformed section of the population, the majority among the electorate.

To hold the many innocent sections of a nation equally or even preferentially responsible for the actions of a guilty government and its voluntary supporters, a disastrous vice quite commonly practised, would no longer be possible in the future:

Only then would the people have always only the government they deserve, wanted and voluntarily supported and no longer a government which was forced upon dissenting minorities or even upon a dissenting majority. Only then could the principle of collective responsibility be applied against the members of such a volunteer community with considerable justification and only then would one avoid the mistake of resorting to indiscriminate mass extermination devices in order to hit here and there someone who is living within a crowd of people who are not involved in his crimes but are rather the natural allies against him.

(Our "national security experts" act like a "police force" would that engaged bank robbers in street battles with tanks, artillery and heavy bombers, regardless of the thus resulting numerous losses of innocent non-combatants. Obviously, they have not or not properly defined who their enemy really is. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

The principle of collectivist responsibility would be applicable - and then only with individualist means - exclusively in cases where the leadership of an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers would act criminally aggressive and would, nevertheless, not be immediately resisted, deposed and punished by the members, although the victims would call for such an action.

Let us suppose, that the majority of the voluntary members supported the criminal actions of their leaders and that the dissenting minorities seceded. Then, and only then, could the principle of collective responsibility be rightly applied against all members remaining with this association, provided they are adults and rational enough to be held responsible for their actions.

What kind of measures ought to be applied then will be discussed later. ABC weapons are, obviously, out.

As a rule the members of autonomous and exterritorial associations of volunteers would themselves arrest and prosecute or hand over for prosecution, any of their leaders who committed criminal acts. Should those leaders have become, in spite of the inherent safeguards of these associations, so powerful that they could not be legally prosecuted, and should outlawry and tyrannicide attempts fail, then the innocent members would secede from this community and ask the members of other communities to assist them against these criminals. Thus measures based upon collective responsibility would have a strong tendency to be applied only against guilty people.

Frequently the public and the present decision makers do not even "think" in terms of guilt and personal responsibility for one's actions but merely consider, as a consequence of the unlimited power of many States to dispose of their citizens, their lives, liberties and properties as they please, i.e., these citizens merely as property or adjuncts of their governments. Based upon this "idea", one then merely wants to harm or exert pressure upon the criminal government by "treating" or threatening the subjugated population in these States with mass extermination devices. Such opinions are rarely ever openly proclaimed and most people are not even fully aware of them. Nevertheless, they usually act in accordance with such ideas, e.g. when proposing an "economic" blockade, be it against the Soviet Union or Rhodesia, in order to exert some pressure upon a government. Morally this is no better than trying to pacify an aggressive neighbour by beating up his children - and in practice it is even less peace- promoting.

If one were to ask all those acting unconsciously in accordance with the idea of collective responsibility, whether they consider the subjects of a foreign government as its property or as equally guilty for its actions, they would deny such an absurdity. Nevertheless, in any new concrete case which they would "judge" subsequently, they will be inclined to impetuously consider the subjects of the foreign government as its property or as equally responsible followers - and they will make corresponding proposals, some of them even genocidal ones. An idea hammered into subjects for thousands of years, by warring governments, in the interests of these governments (Hitler explicitly ordered an inhuman treatment for Russian prisoners of war so that the Soviets would not treat German prisoners well and thus induce them to desert!) cannot be easily eradicated, no even by its worst consequence, the threat of nuclear war. It has come too close to being an "inborn" idea. At most we can hope to destroy its breeding grounds - by abolishing territorial rule.

37

Territorial States with compulsory membership are the main breeding grounds for collective responsibility notions and mass murder actions or preparations and oppression & exploitation on a vast scale and as such they must be destroyed - if possible without spilling any blood and destroying any property. This is less utopian than it sounds as we will see below.

After the realisation of the right of individuals to secede and to establish or join exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, the common errors in applying the principle of collective responsibility will be better than ever before exposed. Enlightenment on this subject will then be very much facilitated and abuses of this principle will gradually become as rare as (or rarer than) coercive sexual acts are now in truly civilised societies.

Those who have seceded from a dictatorship and allied themselves with the liberal-democratic States and panarchistic exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, can no longer by any flight of fancy be considered as fully subjected to the disposal orders of dictators or fully responsible for the actions of a dictatorial regime. They are no longer "nationalize" "property" or slaves, quite obviously, even if they ever had been to some extent. Members of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would, as customers, rather own and rule their governments than be owned or ruled by them. Most of the old terms on social relations would no longer apply to them.

By artificial enclosures for nationalities and second-class treatment of members of other nations as foreigners and aliens (e.g., by emigration and immigration restrictions) does every territorial State promote chauvinistic feelings and contributes thus to wars. The more stress is put by a government on "national interest, security, honour, prestige and unity" the more it becomes actually a cover-up for a wide diversity of and even antagonism of interests, for dishonourable acts of rulers against the own subjects and foreigners and for an imposed order which has nothing to do with a chosen one. As a rule, the national sentiment for a large State or State Federation, is also drummed up to overpower or cover-up whatever diverse and genuine national sentiment still exists among numerous minorities. As Caroline Chisholm once said:

Nationalism, as practised today, also serves to divert the attention of many dissatisfied subjects from many unsolved problems which remain, which governments do not know how to solve, cannot solve or have caused in the first place, maintained and enlarged. This will often even induce rulers to involve "their nation" in another war.

Some major flaws of present nationalism are perhaps best summarised by the following quotations:

The right of individuals to secede would prevent the unfavourable and oppressive treatment of the genuine, i.e. voluntaristic, national groups and would dissolve the present coercive national conglomerates. At the same time, it would be no obstacle to continent-wide and even world-wide citizenship - on a voluntary basis. Every nation, tribe or national minority would then have the opportunity and the right to conduct

38

its own affairs, undisturbed, by excluding itself from the mother-country or the father-land in form of an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers.

"The" Germans, for instance, would hardly have conducted a national war of liberation against Napoleon I - if he had given them this option. And without the nationalistic fervour bred by the Napoleonic wars - where would nationalism be now?

After this reform has been realized in the whole world, one would no longer have to be afraid of an aggression from abroad by a territorial and coercive State, with subsequent and undesired foreign rule and the inevitable further clashes this would lead to. The toleration of differences is obviously more peace promoting than the imposition of a single system.

Moreover, nationalism would lose one of its usually overlooked major supports: the hatred against foreign competitors, be they workers or businessmen. By removing the barriers for autonomous and exterritorial communities of volunteers and as a result of the subsequent complete freedom for tolerant experiments in the social and economic sphere, the long existing solutions of social problems like unemployment, housing-shortage and sales difficulties, could be practically demonstrated by minority groups and thus made generally known. Consequently, the hatred against foreign competitors would finally replaced by the insight that every additional and economically used labour and business would increase general wealth by a further division of labour.

Racial hatred and the danger of war which accompanies it, would largely be abolished because members of different races would no longer be forced to use the same institutions and live under the same laws. No racial minority would have to be afraid of any racial majority - as long as it could secede. No racial majority would remain subjected to any racial minority. Members of different races might live in the same localities, same streets and houses even, but could, nevertheless, live legally and juridically, as well as socially, as far apart from each other and as differently as they like. The fear of foreign competitors, which so easily becomes transformed into hatred, would also cease. (Due to the above hinted at and below described economic liberty.) The existence of the right to secede would render in vain any endeavours of any race to achieve any pre-eminent position not based on abilities, knowledge and consent - and members of any race could obtain any position in accordance with their abilities and knowledge - at least among alike or sufficiently tolerant people.

No racial group could then complain any longer about being exploited by another. E.g., any racial community could utilise its own taxes or contributions exclusively for its own purposes.

With many people racial hatreds go so far that they would not even want to ride on the same public transport vehicles together with them or would not want to use the same hotels, theatres and schools. Very well, they may use their own - provided they finance them themselves. (Partly with their share in all public assets! See PEACE PLANS 19 C.) But railways and similar natural monopoly institutions will probably have to be "socialised" or rendered into "open cooperatives", as proposed by Theodor Hertzka (see below) and this would naturally preclude the exclusion of any race.

In the long run, racial hatreds will probably be overcome not by the "purists" organised along racial lines, but by the peaceful and harmonious example of those communities which draw no racial distinctions at all. They are likely to form the majority, at least after some interval, and are based on the fact that unmixed races do no longer exist, anyhow, and would, in the long run, lead to a further biological integration of the different types. The more the purists of whatever skin colour would stress their "racial purity" the more they would tend to exclude really intelligent and capable people, the more they would, consequently, degenerate, as a group! I also imagine that, especially after the sexual revolution, parents will have some difficulties in prescribing the race of sexual partners for their children. The less force is used in this sphere, the less racial prejudice is blocked, the faster will racism be finally overcome.

39

No government would any longer be able to restrict the free exchange of goods and services. In other words, trade wars would cease and no State could any longer, at the expense of the standard of living of its subjects, arrange for a degree of autarchy - in preparation for another war. For himself almost every individual discovers, sooner or later, the disadvantages of the "protectionist" policy (even the theoretical defenders of protectionist policies "to protect national industries", tend to smuggle, if they can get away with it) and thus, sooner or later everyone will secede from protectionist communities.

During the period of transition, those who have chosen protectionism for themselves, will find difficulties in upholding the tariff barriers which they have set for themselves, against the smuggling attempts of their own members. They are not authorised to interfere with the movements of goods and services of the Free Traders, who do not want to be "protected" by them. Neither can they demand that others subject themselves to such irrational policies merely to facilitate for them the levy of this special tax against (or other restrictions on) international trading.

Moreover, the protectionists will have to bear all the costs of restricting their own trading themselves. In Germany, at least for some years, the custom duties collected just sufficed to pay the salaries of the collectors. Thus it was not even a revenue raising but just a penal and wasteful measure reducing the standard of living.

The independence of the new communities from the present legislation on money, currency, credit and foreign exchange, would also allow them to use payment methods which will make protectionist measures superfluous, even in the eyes of the protectionists, by achieving an automatic balance of trade and payments, quite obviously. (See below.)

Today only governments may make binding promises towards other nations. (Although they "honour" these more by breaking than by keeping them.) Their treaties, pacts and agreements are not trusted, neither by the foreign governments nor the foreign peoples. This only does them justice for they deserve distrust.

History has shown, over and over again, that governments do not always keep their word. Experience showed that the rule is rather that they will break their word or written commitment, sooner or later, often merely to gain a small and temporary advantage or to make some concession to some prejudice. As they cannot be held responsible in cases of breach of contract, they do this frequently without any immediate risk for themselves. Admittedly, dictatorial governments break treaties etc. more often than other governments do: According to Dr. K. Adenauer the Soviet Union had broken, ofinternational treaties it had signed, more than a hundred.

But in many cases a government is in a dilemma which more or less forces its hands. If it were to keep a certain contract and thereby renounced a certain advantage, it would arouse the ire of many of the own nationalistic subjects. It would be accused of weakness, lack of energy and resolution, neglect of the national interest etc. Is there any government which is willing to risk such accusations very often?

Thus, if any government promised not to attack another government, if it declared rightful war aims in case of a defensive war, if it promised to treat all those who fled or deserted or were taken prisoner and who declared that they were only forced to fight against it, not as enemies but as neutral guests or allies, who could and would rely on such a promise of a government? Thus, such promises, made by governments, would often not be relied upon, i.e., they would not achieve their purpose as defensive and preventive measures.

In all truly important cases, promises of governments and treaties between them are almost valueless. For instance, almost all governments signed the international Briand-Kellog Pact on the outlawing of war, in the year 1928!

From the initiative and the treaties of governments among themselves, one could not have expected a better world federation than the League of Nations and the United Nations. They just showed most of the vices of present governments in exaggeration.

40

Why would promises and treaties of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers be different? Why would they deserve trust and find it?

In such treaties the will of the members, all volunteers, can be truly expressed. In other words, then the will of the people is expressed. The members, or the (self-selected) people themselves decide e.g. upon war and peace, armament and disarmament. (See below) A Reasonably enlightened people (all kinds of educational energies will then also be released!) has never any interest in becoming involved in an unjust war. It knows that its burdens would outweigh its possible advantages by far and that it would have to carry all the burdens and make all the sacrifices itself. (Those with "fighting spirit" could practise it e.g. on football fields, in boxing rings or in non-contact sports or by splattering each other with paint or by playing peaceful computerised war games.)

Nor would a volunteer community, people or nation as a whole break its word so easily, even if some of its members should have a change of mind.

Moreover, any citizen of another nation or exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers could, in future, check the trustworthiness of the promises of members of other communities himself, by conversing with them to make sure that the promises they made, together with their other members, were genuine and not made under any coercion. To make such a check, a future voluntary citizen may not even have to cross a street but just might have to knock next door. Nay, members of the other communities might even be found within his own family. As Edward Gibbon reported, in chapter 38 of his famous work, reproduced in the appendix, it happened that up to 5 different personal law associations were represented in a single family.

Originally, the promises and treaties of these volunteers, people or citizens, will be made publicly, in town meetings and large meetings in the open air - to which many members of other communities will be invited as witnesses. A nation, people or citizens, thus free to witness and check treaties offered to it by other nations, people or volunteer citizens, cannot be deceived. They would all soon find out that their promises and treaties can be trusted and this would bring about a vast change in international relations. (Compare the section under "Trust" in Peace Plans 16-18.)

Although rulers had never sufficient reasons or cause for war, they were never short of motives for beginning one. (National unity for Abraham Lincoln meant, in practice, unity UNDER his rule.) After the introduction of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers most of these motives will disappear, usually with the rulers of the old type.

Wars of conquest are no longer making any sense under these new conditions and thus one will no longer have to be afraid of and prepared against them. There would no longer be any property rights of a government or the leaders of one of the new communities towards the assets and lives of citizens in any section of this world's surface - unless such rights have been voluntarily and individually transferred, while this suits the voluntary members.

National minorities could no longer be oppressed, thus would not be motivated to look for aid from abroad or to begin a civil war.

The peaceful coexistence of members of different communities in the same territory would also lead to a much greater mutual understanding and finally to a gradual and voluntaristic integration and merger of different systems - without stopping the rise of new progressive varieties, trying to be pioneers in one or the other sphere. Perhaps most important in this age of ideologies: The forced realisation and imposition of a new system upon dissenters will no longer be necessary or somewhat justified, not even in the eyes of the adherents of this system. There is, after all, in human beings, at least the rational tendency to follow the lines of least resistance. Competition by foreign immigrants, which made a large contribution to the rise of nationalistic and exclusive sentiments (compare the attitude of modern unionists to "scabs"!), would no longer be feared as soon as some of the exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers put into operation effective employment programmes, which would inevitably happen due to the experimental freedom involved, even if such programmes would not already exist, just waiting for their chance: the removal of government-imposed obstructions.

Quite obviously, once the system is seen in operation, foreign markets would no longer have to be conquered or monopolised, in order to obtain sales - once international clearing will no longer be obstructed by governments - at least no longer for those communities which have learned to handle such clearing operations efficiently. Dictators would disappear and with them the motive to obtain foreign policy and military successes - just in order to keep them in the saddle, seeing the numerous failures of their internal "policies".

41

(If those in power were able and willing to learn from history then they would no longer confidently engage in foreign adventures, either. The Soviet government, for instance, would then remember that the last Czar could not save himself in this way and the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905 and the involvement of Russia in the First World War did rather speed up than prevent the revolutions of 1905 and 1917.)

Separatistic regional efforts would then no longer lead to Secessionist or Civil Wars but merely to the establishment of some more exterritorial communities practising their own personal laws, wherever they used to live before.

The matter of national prestige would also be very different. The prestige of an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers would primarily consist in the successful conduct of its own social, economic and political experiments, in the successes of its constitutional and legal reforms (i.e., in the satisfactions of its customers or consumers), and not at all in the power to be able to successfully defend any particular area with arms or to be feared as a potential aggressor or as an oppressor of the own subjects.

(Territorial States would be turned into competitive private or cooperative corporations, nation- or world-wide, without any legalized privileges towards non-members, i.e., they would have to satisfy their members, investors, suppliers, customers and clients. No one would be compelled to be a member, to invest or work in them or to buy their products or services. Everyone would be free to boycott any of those he disliked. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

Under voluntary taxation no government could hope to obtain more tax slaves by means of foreign conquests. On the contrary, such expensive expeditions would tend to lead to a tax strike of the own members or to massive secessions or disobedience ,at least to re-call attempts.

At present no government permits its people to decide themselves about war and peace - although the people would here make, as a rule, better decisions than the governments. The German people were sick of war at least by 1917 and 1943. Nevertheless, their government forced them to carry on.

Even for democratic governments the following assertion has become something like a religious dogma which is no longer doubted at all :

"Only the government may make decisions on war and peace."

Thus even democratic governments do not conceive or understand the possibility of making peace and disarmament proposals - not to oppressive governments (which are the main obstacle for peace and the destruction of moss extermination devices) but, instead, to the oppressed peoples themselves, who are the natural, although due to their position necessarily silent, allies of all free people anywhere.

(As an oppressed people is to be considered any minority group that feels itself oppressed or disadvantaged, although it has not committed any crimes with victims. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

This monopoly for making as important decisions does lead to war whenever the decisive men happen to belong to a warlike minority.

The corruptive influence of excessive power upon the character and the maxims of these decision makers worsens the situation. Rulers do not, like their subjects, risk their lives., liberty, health and property in a war. Thus they often all too easily decide upon one. For them it is a spectator blood sport. Moreover, they could not possibly bear the responsibility for a wrong decision, even if trials of war criminals became the rule and were always fair: Their single life cannot possibly balance the lives of millions of war victims.

(And is there any power more absolute and corrupting than the constitutional and legal or usurped power to make life and death decisions for millions of other human beings? - Nevertheless, this power is rarely even questioned, far less systematically resisted and abolished. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

The development of mass extermination devices has turned the authority of governments, to decide upon war and peace, into the "right" of a handful of people to decide about the continuance of mankind. No government was ever intentionally authorised by its subjects with such powers. Even if such powers had been at one stage individually transferred, it would no more bind the subjects than a "contract" by which a man sold himself into slavery. Such contract, putting all advantages on one side and all disadvantages on the other, is by its very nature not obligatory for the disadvantaged and gives the advantaged no extra rights.

The governments have also repeatedly declared that they are unable to destroy all nuclear and other mass murder devices. (Their own powers being the greatest obstacle to such an endeavour!) This alone is already a sufficient justification for taking their present powers for decision making on war and peace, armament and disarmament, altogether away from them.

The whole burden of wars falls on citizens, i.e. those on whose fate the governments may make wrong decisions. Thus, already in 1795, Immanuel Kant demanded clearly in his famous essay: "Eternal Peace", the right for the people to decide upon war and peace for themselves and alone.

(Contrary to his and other people's republicanism and democracy, this cannot be realized "representatively" but only via direct democracy for every voluntary community and, especially, for its members who are armed, trained and organized to defend individual rights and nothing else. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

42

After the introduction of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, this old peace proposal could be easily realized: Whoever opposed a particular war could, if there were still no referendum or similar decision making process for such decisions permitted or if he disagreed with the majority, simply secede from the State or the community involved. If the majority of the citizens seceded, then the remaining minority could, as a rule, no longer conduct the intended war or may no longer want to. Naturally, as a rule, this extreme measure would not be required. It would suffice that it could be taken at any time in order to realize the right of the people to decide upon questions of war and peace themselves.

The leadership of an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers would be directly dependent upon the will of its members. Thus it could hardly determine upon its own the initiation of another war. I cannot imagine that there would be many such communities which would transfer such powers to their leaders.

If there were, those threatened by such arrangements, all other communities, would in my opinion be entitled to tyrannicide. Public opinion on such matters and under such circumstances would be so different from today that the outlawry and execution of such elected Caesars would take place soon.

We should also take into consideration that the new social system permits the armament of all peaceful people who love liberty and a consensual decision-making where it cannot be avoided. Armed peace and freedom lovers can hardly be herded into a war against their will, particularly if they are organized in volunteer militias of the type described below.

As a consequence of individual secessionism there would no longer any large-scale absolute obedience. Thus the soldiers of armies sent against each other, by leaders who tell them, in essence: "We have no better use for you! Go ahead and slaughter each other for our benefit!", could easily, and over the heads of their generals and their rulers, come to a mutually attractive separate peace agreement.

Standing armies of professional volunteers or of conscripted soldiers can too easily be turned into tools of militaristic and imperialistic rulers. Therefore they must be dissolved as soon as possible.

It can be safely predicted that after the realisation of the right of individuals to secede, local militias would soon be formed by volunteers to protect human rights and the rights of rational beings in their areas, also, to undertake any further forceful measures required to preserve world peace. For this purpose they would soon form federations, even across former national boundaries. Finally, and in a natural process, these militias are likely to replace all standing armies.

The weapons monopoly would no longer exist and with it would fall the prohibitions against private military organizations of a non-criminal type.

The right to secede from an army would soon bring an end to abuses in military establishments. (Abuses continue in the conscript army of "liberated" Russia, so that instances of suicides and desertion are rampant. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

In the long run only a military organization could remain which is so rightfully and sensibly organised that it would always find sufficient volunteers, volunteers who are even prepared to pay for their own training and equipment in peace time.

An international federation of the local militias would be required to carry out larger military operations which, sometimes, might still be required, e.g. against intolerant new religious sects. (Compare e.g. the wars resulting from Mohammed's inspirations.) The mere existence of such an international military force would, in most cases, prevent large scale offences against human rights, like the genocide of European Jews by the Nazi regime, in the same way as the existence of a still rather imperfect militia or national guard in Switzerland and in the U.S. does there prevent any open conquests of State powers by coups, or any brash dictatorship. If a coup occurred in such a country, then within a few hours hundred-thousands of militia men would, militarily organized and armed, be on the move against the praetorian guards in the capital, to restore the constitutional order existing before. Knowledge of this prevents the coups and the beginnings of new imperialistic attempts.

(Fear of such a resistance has led in the U.S. to more and more nationalisation and State control of its "national guard", leading it far away from its original militia traditions and from an ideal militia for the protection of individual rights. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

43

Without a subdivision of the Earth's surface among several States wars cannot be conceived. To that extent the world federalists and world statists are right. But instead of abolishing the coercive, sovereign and exclusive powers of States, characterised by territorial rule, most of them just want to establish a territorial super power to lord it over the States. Without ever having found a sufficient justification for the numerous activities of national States, they now want to assign numerous activities exclusively to a World State or World Federation. Moreover, they strongly disagree on whether it is to be a World State or a World Federation and what kind of either it should be.

At the same time there is, indeed, sometimes, a need for one or the other world-wide agreement, be it on postal services, time zones, the provision of satellites, standards of measurements etc. But nobody has ever proven that only a government could provide such services. Nevertheless, the belief exists and is hard to defeat by mere theoretical arguments. Thus, to pacify all world statists and world federalists, the simplest solution would be to let them go ahead and organise themselves, to their hearts content, in as many and as many different World States and World Federations as they desire for themselves. There is room for all of them - if they are organised on an exterritorial and not on a territorial basis. Indeed, all exterritorial and autonomous associations of volunteers, established in the future, seeing they do not claim any country exclusively for themselves and do not limit their activities to any one country, as a rule, but tend to be rather cosmopolitan, signing like-minded members up anywhere, all of them could very well also be considered as world federations.

At the same time, by their very nature, not one of them would be any real threat to any dissenters anywhere. Should, after the establishment of individual sovereignty, through individual secession and voluntary associations, some people still see some need for any special world-wide organizations, no one would be able to hinder them or would want to prevent them from setting them up, as long as the membership of these new associations would remain voluntary.

In the transition stage, a special type of international federation would often occur. When governments of the old type would attempt to force their subjects to fight each other, they would often prefer to establish some kind of federation between them, one which would establish peace between them while allying them against their former governments. Moreover, they would invite as many people as possible to join their resistance organisation & actions against such aggressive governments.

Now let us presume that there would be such a thing like an ideal world federation, in the same way as many libertarians believe that there could be such a thing as an ideal limited government. There is no better way to achieve either aim, if it can be achieved at all, then to throw this aim open to free competition, to free experi-mentation with many forms and systems, all with the best possible selection of personnel, to achieve the best possible results: namely volunteers firmly believing in their particular ideals. If the aim could be achieved, one or the other of these freely and peacefully competing groups would sooner or later find the road towards it. In the meantime we should set our sights on more limited federations, e.g. federations between local militia units and, perhaps, federations of minority groups now almost subjugated by two or more States in whose present areas they live.

If, moreover, not only particular minorities thus united or federated, ignoring any of the present borders, but all minority groups that are presently disadvantaged, anywhere on Earth, were to set up some form of defensive alliance between them, as they would have the perfect right to do, then I consider it quite possible that merely by numbers they would constitute the largest group on Earth.

The programme which could unite them to the extent necessary for defensive common efforts could be expressed in two words: mutual tolerance. Perhaps such a world-wide organisation would be the best vehicle to spread the ideas of individual secessionism and personal law world-wide. Naturally, once such an organization had achieved its objective: the demolition of every dictatorial system on this planet, it might well dissolve itself or become automatically dissolved by the secession of its members. But some of its institutions might survive: an international defence organization, for instance, rather limited, because there would be few enemies left and not many new ones arising, and some kind of international arbitration system. Even these would not have to be organized along World State lines.

44

Between States of the present type there is no one or no organization which could guarantee a condition of justice. Thus, between these States, as long as they exist, wars will continue again and again - unless they succeed in wiping all of us out.

They are warfare organizations against external and internal enemies and as such tend to perpetuate their warlike characteristics, each being rightly afraid of all the others. Consequently, whatever international law was so far developed and recognised, is largely only a law of warfare or at least of power struggles, even if sometimes only carried out by diplomats at the front. It is not based on the recognition of human rights, as a rule, but rather permits them to suppress or disregard human rights.

There are exceptions, but they are also honoured more by breach than by fulfilment.

The Hague Convention on the conduct of land warfare does as least make some attempts to protect the rights of combatants and non-combatants.

Only mutual respect of human rights, at least in the members of other exterritorial and autonomous institutions, in case one does not claim certain human rights for oneself, within one's community, will be able to keep the peace between the members of the different exterritorial communities. They are themselves based on what is perhaps the most important human right, that of individual sovereignty. Consequently, the international law developing to regulate their relations with each other, will largely be based on the recognition of human rights and the natural rights of rational beings. These will form the basic legal code for the international arbitration court systems they will set up and will form the guidelines for the international federation of local militias for the protection of human rights. Most of the volunteer communities, the militia forces and the court systems will insist upon that every member will be sworn in to uphold the human rights, expressed in a common declaration, at least in the persons of those communities which respect these rights internally and externally, even when those giving the oath have, for the time being and for their own lives and community renounced particular rights. For instance, communists would have to swear not to interfere with the private property rights of members of capitalistic communities whilst capitalists would have to swear not to interfere with the various collectivist property arrangements in communistic or socialistic communities. On that basis agreement between them appears possible.

It can be foreseen that the international militia will have to mobilise itself only very rarely to restore peace, precisely because the various groups will all be free to run their own affairs as they please. At least to that extent the exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers are designed for peaceful and tolerant coexistence. Between territorial warfare States it is hardly possible, at least not in the long run. (Even the democratic or republican ones among them, relatively peaceful, but not sufficiently peace-promoting or defensively and liberatingly strong towards dictatorships, can be turned, as happened all too often, into dictatorships, and thus can become a threat to peace for the world. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

States do only rarely declare clear war aims in case they are attacked or are themselves attacking. This omission leads then both sides to believe that they are really fighting for their national existence, their very survival, at least for their "national interest". The subject is not even thrown up for discussion. There is no distinct bone of contention, yet the dogfight goes on. Wars are thus unnecessarily prolonged and conducted with all the greater cruelty and destructiveness and bloodshed.

Compare how late any war aims at all were declared during the last two World Wars - and then how one-sided and imperfect even these declarations were - and how little reason the people on either side had to trust such promises.

What induces States to engage in as irrational and bloodthirsty conduct, comparable at best to drunken brawlers in a pub or on the footpath next to it? Kant had this to say on the subject, in "Eternal Peace":

There are many good reasons for believing that most of the secret war aims (at least one must presume that they have such and that wars are not merely the results of drugged dreams the decision makers had) of today's States are wrongful, thus would not stand publicity and thus are kept secret.

45

All too often do States merely act in accordance with the so-called "Right of the Strongest". In practice this merely means: We will take and keep whatever we can grab! (On the presumed "right" of the strongest see the still excellent refutation in J. J. Rousseau's Social Contract, chapter 3.)

Moreover, according to the prevailing opinion, it would infringe the "sovereignty" of a State if it obliged itself, by means of a declaration of rightful war aims, towards any foreign country. Most nationalists want to retain what they skilfully misnamed: "freedom of action".

No State of the present type can free itself sufficiently from all kinds of nationalistic, imperialistic, militaristic and collectivistic notions, myths and prejudices or the "principles" of what has been misnamed "practical" or "realistic" politics. (Realpolitik)

Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, on the other hand, have nothing to hide. Their maxims are rightful and can thus, to their own great advantage, be publicised in time in order to help them win in any political or military clashes.

On this Kant said, likewise in "Eternal Peace":

A State of the present type can very well exist without recognising human rights, nay, even by their suppression. (Some would say, that they even exist merely due to the fact that they have repressed certain human rights successfully, rights like those discussed in this book. I do largely agree with them.) But for exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers the knowledge of and respect for human rights - and the natural rights of rational beings - are preconditions for their very existence. (This in spite of the fact that some of them might renounce some of these rights for their internal relations.) For their external relations and for their very birth they are absolutely dependent on the recognition of certain basic rights.

Consequently, the exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers will publicly and with sufficient publicity and repeatedly declare, years before it would come to any clashes with others, what their aims are in case it would come to war. Among other points they would declare the following:

a) No reparations, no conquests, no forced labour.

(However, liberation cost claims will be laid against the nationalised assets of a former despotism as well as against the private properties of its guilty leaders. - J.Z., 8.12.02.

b) We will not force anyone to embrace any particular social or economic or political system.

c) Aim of our defensive efforts will be to protect and restore the rule of human rights, at least for our interrela-tionships, especially the right of self-determination, even for minorities, a right which can best be realised by individual secession and the organization of exterritorial and autonomous volunteer organizations.

No government today is sufficiently and in advance concerned with the problem of prisoners of war and deserters and their proper treatment during a war, in accordance with international law, the requirements of morality and the enlightened self-interest. Instead, when it comes to war, emotions run high, myths prevail and are fostered, they treat even those soldiers of the enemy regime, who were conscripted or even deserted, as enemies. The treatment is usually of a kind that the enemy's soldiers, although not enamoured with their own government, often prefer to fight to the last, even for a cause known to be unjust, rather than surrender and being severely mistreated as prisoners of war. Particularly in our times, when most wars are fought on both sides with conscripts, wars are thereby prolonged and made much more severe.

What happens, in other words, is that governments, in thoughtless reaction to the opening of hostilities, and wrongly applying the principle of collective responsibility, consider all former enemy subjects as true believers, fully responsible for their government's crimes and thus to be dealt with punitively or at least with extreme prejudice, suspicion and security measures.

How, on the other hand, would exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers act in this situation? Fundamentally, when conducting a war against a government which has not yet recognised the right of individuals to secede, they would distinguish between the voluntary and the involuntary subjects of that government, especial-ly seeing that the introduction of the right to secede would be one of their primary rightful war aims, declared long in advance of any hostilities and brought to the attention of all foreign subjects.

46

Consequently, they would also declare, long in advance, and finally act upon this declaration, that they would treat all those prisoners, refugees and deserters, who declare that they were forced to fight or work against them, not as enemies, as prisoners of war, as internees or conquered people, but, instead, either as neutral guests or even as allies, if they can agree upon mutually attractive conditions.

They would be fully aware that the persons concerned are largely people who were only hindered by their circumstances to become members of freedom-loving exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers of one or the other type.

Today, if at all, States usually call for deserters from the other side only in the middle of a war, when, due to cruelties and crimes on both sides, whatever mutual trust still remained, has been further minimised. Thus it is not surprising that, as a rule, only a small number respond to such appeals, especially when nothing better is offered to them than "good treatment" as prisoners of war and when the war aim appears to be rather "unconditional surrender" than any rightful war aim, like, e.g., liberation for everyone according to his ideals.

Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would act otherwise because they are based upon the recognition that subjects and rulers often have opposite interests, so that the subjects, when there is no legal or revolutionary way out for them, will attempt to escape their oppressors and exploiters by fleeing or deserting to the other side, the enemy of their regime. Thus these communities would declare, many years in advance, how they would act in such a situation. They would announce their readiness to accept neutrals and allies from the other side, as guests or as armed comrades. They would even offer them payment for the arms they would bring over with them. They would assure them jobs and accommodation and, if desired, immediate return to their home area as soon as it is liberated and would assure for them the introduction of the right to secede in their area of the world, for individuals, for minorities, for the majority.

Consequently, much of the fighting that would otherwise take place would be replaced by the publication of such appeals and the inevitable effects they would have upon the armed forces and other subjects of dictatorships. The few soldiers remaining loyal to the enemy regime would be demoralised by mass desertions of their comrades and would mostly surrender, giving their cause up as hopeless. If not, they could easily be overwhelmed, especially with the help of the new allies. Moreover, the exterritorial autonomy offer would also apply to them. They would become free to realize all their ideals for themselves. This would apply e.g. to the numerous dissenting communist and socialist groupings within the two major Red Empires.

After the realisation of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, at first in the democratic countries of the West, governments-in-exile could be rapidly formed in opposition to every existing dictatorship. Should it come to war with any of the dictatorships, then the patriotic soldiers and officers of the oppressive government will be willing to desert to or join and support their own rightful government, the government-in-exile on the other side, our ally, much more readily than they would join us. They would also, most likely, do it in much larger numbers than would happen otherwise, especially when they become convinced (and we can achieve that conviction! See below!) that this rightful government is not just a puppet regime we have set up - but that it represents whatever voluntary members it already has and is likely to gain in the country subjected to the dictatorship it opposes.

We must overcome the notion that we should oppose a dictatorship only with a single government-in-exile. Instead, all centrifugal and decentralist forces under the regime should be liberated and utilised, for their own and our independence. A single alternative regime would all too often not be an attractive enough proposition. Nume-rous minorities would not agree with it. At the same time, an All-Russia or All-China government-in-exile could also be set up to satisfy all of the conventional nationalists on the other side. (Naturally, their "united" empires would only be empires of volunteers. As such they can be tolerated by non-members. - J.Z., 8.12.02.)

No government on our side could raise any objections against such governments-in-exile, as soon as the right to secede is realized. It would also apply to these dissenting groups, formed by political exiles, refugees and peace time deserters. Moreover, these "foreign" governments or "States within States" would be as autonomous, on an exterritorial and voluntary basis, as all the other diverse communities.

47

Towards our own governments of the present type, the soldiers and civilians on the other side entertain a justified distrust. All too often they plan not only to overthrow the existing dictatorial regime but to replace it by another one which might be almost or just as bad and certainly will not satisfy all minorities. "The devil you know... " The own government may also plan annexations, reparations and other impositions and would not even tell the own subjects about such plans. So why should foreigners trust it? Our organizations and aims must be so just and the facts must be so trustworthily communicated that the subjects on the other side would rather believe us and act in accordance with us than obey their own governments.

Such an objective would be hard to impossible to achieve for any conventional government - but it would almost be child's play for the new social organizations proposed. It would be their speciality. No government could beat them at their own special game.

States are unsuitable organizations for concluding peace or preventing war. Almost all chapters in this section of this book confirm this point. One cannot rightly assert the same for exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers.

States have become giant bureaucratic machines involved in so many activities that they can hardly spare any time or interest for the establishment and preservation of a lasting peace. Instead, they send a few of their public servants to conferences with the officials of other States. Those functionaries have no direct interest in achieving a lasting peace treaty and no knowledge of how it could be brought about, other than as a mere formality. During all those negotiations, lasting sometimes for years, and in-between, they are on high salaries and expense accounts. Moreover, they stand in the centre of public attention, of a public kept in ignorance of foreign affairs (other than as power politics). Thus they have as a rule only a public servant's interest in the comfort and continuance of their posts. If they fulfilled their task (and provided public servants could fulfil such tasks - some-thing that is denied in this book, even if they had the best of will) then they would render themselves superfluous. Few in the public service are inclined towards such a self-sacrificing public service.

Paradoxically, precisely by these supposed servants of ours, who belong to the master class, losing their privileged position regarding negotiations and decisions on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties and representations, by seeing to it that the people themselves, in one way or the other, but, anyhow, much more directly, take over these tasks and, moreover, by assuring that almost all individuals work on the task to establish world peace, largely by claiming their human rights and natural rights of rational beings, especially the right of individuals to secede, can the tasks of these diplomats and foreign ministers and prime ministers be solved at all! Those who can do the job are presently not allowed to do it. Those who cannot do the job have been given a monopoly for doing it!

Khrushchev is supposed to have said something similar in 1959:

Most likely, he had a world revolution of the communist type in mind when he said that and overlooked that the Russian and other people, suppressed by him, needed only a good revolutionary programme to apply this idea against himself.

Compare also the related remark Dwight D. Eisenhower made once, as President of the U.S. - which is quoted on page 3.

But generally politicians do not think along such lines. The rather accept the role of the arrogant practitioner: "There will always be wars!" (This is a self-fulfilling prophecy: So far, with all their "principles", actions, policies and programmes, moreover, by their very existence as power holders, they have made very sure that there will be wars.) They look down on the mere theoreticians of peace, although only due to their wrong and false theories and actions could a practice of peace not develop so far. In reality, they are not even very practical men in their power politics and in open warfare.

For instance, in their prejudices and ignorance rulers treat prisoners of war so badly that the enemies' soldiers often rather fight to the last than let themselves be taken prisoners. Peace promises of such cruel masters are, naturally, not believed, either.

It just does not come natural, to territorial governments (because they demand more or less absolute obedience from their own subjects), to attempt to overthrow the enemy

48

regime or to defeat it rapidly - by inviting the subjects of this regime to disobey their rulers and rather ally themselves to a foreign government at war with their own, or with a rightful government in exile.

In short, governments, in many ways and unintentionally, prevent or delay peace. Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would act differently, simply because they would be based on respect for individual human rights and natural rights of rational beings.

States prohibit individual citizens, associations and, naturally, especially their armed forces and individual military units, to conclude any separate peace treaties. Moreover, they severely prosecute such endeavours as treason or high treason.

At the same time, the governments, as stated above, find it difficult to conclude peace or, if they have allies, at least an honourable separate peace for themselves. Mostly they succeed in achieving peace only when both sides are already that exhausted by their efforts that they could hardly continue with the war, anyhow.

Prohibitions of separate peace treaties would be justified only in a society which recognises all human rights and natural rights of rational beings and for any fights it might have with a dictatorial or totalitarian regime. Even then, one should endeavour to achieve separate treaties - not with the enemy regime but with its subjects.

Such a rightful society would, through recognition of the right of individuals to secede, be nothing more than an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers. To conclude a separate peace treaty directed against such a society would indeed be treason - against reason and human rights!

Separate peace treaties between the troops of a Hitler and a Stalin would be quite a different matter. To conclude such treaties would, according to moral principles, not only not be treasonous (except in the eyes of the two governments involved) but instead dutiful! Such signatories should not have worried about the complaints and accusations of their former oppressors and exploiters. Instead, they should have formed themselves into exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, re-arranged themselves into militia units for the protection of human rights and the defence of their volunteer communities, and should have invited all other German and Russian soldiers to revolt likewise or to desert and to fraternise with them - in order to liberate themselves in the same way. From the point of view of human rights is was high treason that, as a rule, they did not act in this way.

We would still have another kind of case if a relatively free and democratic State, e.g. England or the United States, were at war with the Soviet Union and peace would not be rapidly achieved by the democratic West. (I am well aware how inaccurate this short-hand term is.) Then one could perceive and facilitate the performance of the duty of every military unit of the Soviets to use every opportunity for concluding separate peace treaties with the democratic countries. One could and should, for instance, draft and publicise sufficiently, standard contracts for such peace treaties. They would contain nothing but rightful war aims and guarantees for them. Then the members of the Soviet's military forces would have very good reasons for wanting to sign such separate peace treaties for themselves and would not feel like traitors towards anything that is good in their countries and in their countrymen's aspirations.

On the other hand, a military unit of a democratic country would act criminally, or commit high treason, if it were to betray its own side, which defends a however imperfect declaration of human rights and however incomplete freedom tradition, and were to conclude a separate peace with the Red Army or the Soviet Regime - on the terms provided by the Soviet Regime so far. No government that has some sense should have any objections if its armies or units concluded peace treaties with armies or units on the other side - provided only these are concluded on the foundation of human rights.

It would be interesting to see two opposing governments actively pursuing this policy, attempting to outdo each other with just peace offers towards the subjects on the other side. This is, admittedly, a very hypothetical case. To adopt such a common ,policy both sides would already have to be exterritorial and autonomous communities of

49

volunteers - and, both sides having largely just and therefore overlapping war aims, they would soon come to a peace agreement, anyhow.

Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would certainly use every opportunity for concluding separate peace treaties, at least with the subjects of the opposing regimes. Moreover, they would appeal to their own troops and authorise them to sign such agreements on the spot, whenever possible. Naturally, these agree-ments would apply only to those signing them or approving the signature of some of their spokesmen by their actions. The exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers will point out to every soldier on the other side, with whom they can somehow communicate, that by means of desertion or secession he can practically realise a separate peace for himself.

Many different separate peace treaties combined, all with rather similar, because just contents, would finally lead to the end of a war because the enemy regime would be deserted by almost all its soldiers.

"War is a condition not between man and man but between State and State." - J. J. Rousseau

Sovereign States are according to their very nature unable, in the long run, to coexist with each other peacefully and tolerantly. Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, on the other hand, are by their very nature designed for a tolerant coexistence. Not only that, they can only exist on the basis of human rights and the natural rights of rational beings. They are among the most important practical expressions of these rights.

Territorial States are indeed suitable for preparing unjust wars, to enlarge them, to prolong them, to make them more severe. But they are very bad institutions for concluding a just peace, rapidly, or to prevent wars. Exterritorial associations would possess none of these flaws.

States require a strong armament and many trained soldiers - because every State realises that the other States are capable and willing to make strong military preparations and that there is, under the existing conditions, no more they can do about this than ordinary citizens can do now.

For the proposed communities, on the other hand, a secret military preparation for attacks against others would be as impossible as an open one. Moreover, for them any extensive defensive preparations would no longer be required. Whatever military protection would still be required could and would most likely, be provided by the proposed militia organizations.

Not even States know the arms preparations of others States sufficiently. In all States all military preparations that take place are considered as State secrets. These secrets are seen by only the eyes of a few, guarded by many security measures and penal clauses, especially by subordination in the armed forces and by the laws on treason. States are inclined to use all opportunities for keeping such secrets. Speaking generally, the main opportunity for keeping secrets of this type consists in the power to seal off whole areas and enterprises from all but very selected people and by successful make-believe propaganda that secrecy for all armament preparations would be dutiful. Thus even the own citizens remain largely unaware of their government's military preparations - and approve of this.

Today's espionage cannot sufficiently annul this secrecy. Spies can only be carefully and at great danger and in small numbers infiltrated. Thus, as a rule, they cannot sufficiently or in time inform their own government of the war preparations of the other. Military expenditures in budgets can be hushed up in the published reports.

Even if a government were well informed on the preparations of another government - this would only serve to continue and perhaps speed up the arms race between them, and might all the faster lead to war.

Compare this situation with that which would prevail among exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers: Every member would be a spy towards all other such communities - with regard to any war preparations they might make. Espionage would then no longer be a despicable profession but rather an attractive and honourable one.

50

Thus the majority of citizens would act as controllers to prevent war preparations of any minority group, much in the some way as they do or could keep crime of the ordinary type in check now. (Presently, the State's police and courts do not invite and facilitate this participatory fighting of ordinary crime sufficiently, perhaps simply because they are bureaucratic institutions.)

How and where could exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers arm secretly? There would no longer be guarded military areas. Armament, exercises and training of the militia would be quite public. Most adult and rational citizens would belong to these forces. They would also, as citizens, enjoy full freedom of speech, press, association and assembly. Thus hardly any preparations for a military aggression could be kept secret from them.

Taxes or contributions would only be paid for certain stated purposes and not for any secret armaments. Diversion of funds for military purposes, even if it could be kept secret, would make membership in such an association non-competitive with regard to the services it provides for its premiums (the stated and open ones). Thus it would lose many of its members fast. Moreover, the members are not motivated to keep such secrets (There is no situation which creates a self-perpetuating chauvinism.) and because of the right to secede they could not be held to secrecy clauses.

Today States can provide standing armies by means of conscription or taxation. These options would no longer exist. Today they build already in peace-time various institutions not for economic but for military reasons, like strategic railway lines, air ports and roads and the taxpayers have no option but to go along. They cannot direct their own funds according to their own priorities.

Secret diplomacy of States leads to acute war situations even before the public becomes aware what is happening and could do anything to prevent it. Thus President Wilson proposed in point I of his peace programme:

Whatever war aims there are, are usually so wrong that they are kept secret and every State consequently acts as if any other State might involve it in a total war.

(Those who doubt this should consult the contingency war plans and war games conducted at their military academies and by the highest military staff, if they were allowed access, beforehand.) This all-round preparedness leads frequently to acute arms races and these, with 99% certainty, lead to wars.

The penal clauses of today's military code (in combination with propaganda, taxation, conscription and the existence of other militaristic monstrosities) enable States to conduct wars even against the will of most of their soldiers and citizens. The individual has only the choice of going along with it or be penalised for disobedience, desertion or rebellion, with rather severe penalties which might even extend to members of his family. This is possible as long as the main requirement for a successful resistance is not fulfilled.

Immanuel Kant spoke of it in "Eternal Peace" as the transition from the distributed unity of the will of all (where all say to themselves: I do not want war but am alone and therefore unable to prevent it) to the collected unity of the united will of all (where all say: We do not want another war and will therefore immediately proceed against the war mongers, in such and such a way.).

In many instances this transition becomes possible only by numerous acts of individual and minority group secessions and by military insurrections.

By means of war propaganda and large-scale suppression of freedom of speech, press, information, association and assembly, especially among soldiers, States often succeed in convincing a large number of their subjects that a certain war would be necessary and justified. The right to secede and the protection of this and other rights by volunteer militias, would frustrate such efforts. Then, more than ever before, the old principle would apply that one can deceive some people all the time, a number of people for a length of time but not all people for any length of time.

The State policy of alliances, which includes even alliances for unjustified aggressive wars (under defensive pretences), has the tendency to widen local military

51

conflicts, might even turn the into world wars. The situation between exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would be different. For one, not masses of conscripted soldiers and taxpayers would be involved but only volunteers. The only war aim would be protection and preservation of human rights. Mostly this could be done fast, by local militias, wherever the offences occur. But in case a group mobilised and overpowered local militia forces, then, if necessary, the whole militia forces of the world could and would act against such an aggressor. Thus there might be many participants but only few armed clashes, because the small number of offenders against human rights could be rapidly and easily defeated in this way. This certainty would prevent the need for many such international "police actions".

States prolong wars by reserving to governments a monopoly for concluding peace treaties. Thus they can force their subjects to continue wars against their will. This becomes obvious e.g. in cases of decimation of troop units which mutinied and were disarmed. They may also prolong wars by propaganda inciting hatreds and giving orders like: "No Pardon!" which create or increase mutual hatred.

They also make armed conflicts more severe by various escalating measures of retaliation, all in wrongful application of the principle of collective responsibility and in disregard for human rights and the natural rights of rational beings - until both governments finally conduct a total war - not so much against each other but, instead - against their subjects.

As we will see below, the armed forces of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, in the few cases where it would still come to wars, would conduct a very different kind of war in a very different way.

The introduction of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would, among other things, lead to unlimited freedom of movement for all persons and their possessions and would thereby also contribute to preserve peace. No such community would possess a territory from which it could exclude immigrants, refugees and deserters (apart from the private property of its members). Today, all State constitutions authorise the territorial governments to arbitrarily restrict immigration, under the pretence that public interest would require this. As the States cannot cope with the problem of jobs and accommodations for immigrants (or, rather, because they brought about a situation, by a variety of economic interventions, where jobs and accommodation are short), they have made extensive use of these powers. Consequently (not only because of the barriers put up by the dictatorships against escapes), the subjects of dictatorships have few chances to flee to and settle in freer countries. Thus most of them stay where they are and form finally the vast army and forces of the enemy regime which, supposedly, can only be kept in check with nuclear destructive devices.

The weapons monopoly of the police and the army can no longer be upheld when one can withdraw from the corresponding laws by means of individual secession. Then, contrary to prejudice, not a war of all against all would result but, instead, internal as well as external peace would be strengthened. (Compare especially Section VI.) Today, peace and freedom loving honest citizens are usually not armed or not well enough armed, because they are not legally permitted to arm themselves, e.g. with hand guns. But at the same time, criminals, terrorists and totalitarian revolutionaries are armed. Consequently, communist and fascist dictatorships can be much easier established and embroil the world in more wars.

After the abolition of the weapons monopoly, neither a police state nor a military dictatorship could arise any longer. Police and army can easily suppress an unarmed population but not an armed one. (Especially not when it is organized, trained and motivated as an ideal militia would be of volunteers for the protection of individual rights. - J.Z., 9.12.02.) Police and army officers can be bribed or put under pressure and abused as tools to gain power (compare e.g. the coup of Napoleon III) but a whole armed and enlightened population could not be misled and ruled in this way.

Today nuclear weapons stores and nuclear weapons factories can be protected by a handful of policemen against ten-thousands of unarmed citizens while the citizens are given no protection against such "weapons", no chance to fight back and protect their rights and interests.

52

It should be obvious that the repeal of the weapons monopoly here proposed is not an open invitation to all to use mass-extermination devices like nuclear weapons or chemical or biological weapons. On the contrary, no one should be authorised to apply such weapons or keep them in readiness or manufacture them.

In future, the rightfully armed and trained and organized citizens could and would see to it, if necessary after using rightful arms against the defenders of anti-people "weapons".

Arms whose effect can be limited to the combatants are rightful but weapons which are inevitably indiscriminate, are wrongful or anti-people weapons and do not even deserve the term "weapons".

The militia forces for the protection of individual rights would assure that all nuclear weapons as well as biological and chemical weapons are disarmed and all atomic bomb factories, and installations like nuclear reactors, which can be used for the manufacture of nuclear destructive devices, are destroyed and can no longer be constructed in the future.

Seeing that at least some governments have repeatedly declared that they would like to see all nuclear weapons destroyed but are for various reasons unable to carry this nuclear disarmament out, they should be the last ones to complain and to resist such a measure, when effectively undertaken by the people themselves.

(How much enlightenment has still to be spread in this sphere was demonstrated by reports that people danced joyfully in the streets of cities in Pakistan when its government finally acquired nuclear anti-people "weapons" as well. Apparently, they did not see themselves as targets but gleefully contemplated the destruction of "enemy" cities! Government schooling hasn't enlightened them in this respect, either, nor have their churches or sects. - There are still too many killer-apes among us! - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

A government, with the police and other armed professional or conscript forces on its side, can declare and carry on a war even against the majority of the citizens, i.e., today, of the unarmed subjects. But armed citizens, trained, organized and properly motivated, would not let themselves be deprived of their chance, of their duty, to make as important decisions for themselves.

The right of individuals to secede from an army or State, like from a church, would make it impossible to carry out the modern method of temporarily enslaving men which is called conscription. Conscription has been the backbone of most modern wars and probably would be, for the future. Only a territorial State has the power required to put compulsory recruitment, also misnamed "selective service" into effect. It is also one of the pillars of the power of the State.

(When looking back into history, e.g. at the times when the Royal Navy press-ganged most of its sailors, one finds that men who had been pressed themselves were often willing and efficient members of future press gangs. Power does also corrupt the powerless and those who believe themselves to be powerless.)

Even the "free and democratic States of the West" are usually not so free and democratic that they believe to be able to find enough volunteers for their armed forces, at least not during war time.

Conscripted soldiers are given no option but to guard ABC weapons against dissenters among the own citizens, who are not protected from the nuclear war danger - which the mere existence of such devices inevitably brings about.

In future, it would be much harder to find voluntary replacements for such conscripts. They could not be bribed into such jobs at the expense of the taxpayers, either. Most important of all, in the new situation few people would believe that these devices would be necessary for the preservation of peace. (See the appendix on the deterrence theory.)

Since everyone would, then, have the ultimate escape from a government which tries to pressurise him to act contrary to his will: since everyone would be free to secede, only those States or communities could still conduct wars which rule so well and stand for as just war aims that they could find sufficient volunteers.

Dictatorships are among the most common causes of war and it is today relatively easy to establish them and relatively hard to overthrow them - once they are established. Once a dictatorship exists and is armed with nuclear destructive devices, then, at least in the long run, and conditions remaining otherwise unchanged, nuclear war is inevitable. Thus at least such dictatorships must be abolished in time.

States may also be considered as dictatorships when only the government may make war and peace decisions and the citizens are altogether disenfranchised in this respect. Without any dictatorships, the States in which the citizens themselves decide about war and peace, armament and disarmament would probably not acquire any nuclear arms in the first place or destroy the ones they have.

Moreover, really free societies would make it easy to resist the beginnings of a dictatorship and hard to establish and maintain them. It would lastly come to the problem of one

53

man attempting to impose his will on all others while the others are in no way dependent upon him and could secede from any organization he might set up. The many could then much easier organise to defend themselves against a few aggressive people and groups. Today's institutions facilitate criminal one-against-all games while hindering self-defends methods. Tomorrow's free institutions would facilitate just all-against-one defence efforts - while not obstructing any creative activities of individuals or individual self-defence efforts.

To establish a dictatorship is difficult only in an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers but not in any of today's "democratic" States in which the people are disarmed and already in many other ways likewise disarmed or dis-franchised. To overthrow, under today's conditions, any dictator, once he has himself established, might cost the lives and property of millions. Terror is effective against unarmed citizens, particularly when they do have no revolutionary programme and organization. In a segregated State territory, people can be kept captive almost as if in a cage and any kind of domination can be imposed upon them in such a situation. Hitler come to power largely using the existing democratic and already largely centralist and monopolistic institutions. Remember what it took to overthrow him once he was in charge of the State's machinery. He could not have risen to such dangerous and destructive powers as a mere leader of an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers, no matter how right-wing radical his internal programme would have been. Most of his early followers would have experienced him fully, close up, noticed the failures much earlier and they could not have gone scape-goat hunting, seeing that they would enjoy full autonomy. Most of them would soon have become disappointed and disillusioned with him. He would just have been another "ratbag" or raving madman, at best a deterrent example to more rational beings.

(Moreover, experimental freedom would have prevented or rapidly ended the Great Inflation as well as the Great Depression, both of which occurred under "democracy", not under the German emperors, and helped to recruit millions to support another "great leader". Each of these events did cost Germany economically as much as did WW I. - That WW I was caused by imperialistic territorialism and protectionism, under a semi-mad German Kaiser, also by a formerly peace-loving Czar, and a war-loving clique around the Austrian emperor, and escalated by "defensive" alliances, was conveniently forgotten by the followers of a new "great leader". - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

To usurp a State's power it is sufficient to win over the police and other armed forces and to change a few of the top positions in a State - while relying on the political, social and economical immaturity and ignorance of most people under the camouflage of some catch phrases. Today, all government posts, whose powers could be abused, are inevitably also accessible to those who would abuse them, who are attracted to them as moths are to light. As badly organized as defence is today, in most States, some generals need only bad intentions and become conscious of their powers and they could, with the help of the subordinated armed forces, conduct a successful coup. Not the institutions but merely public opinion, shared by these officers, prevents this from happening in some of the Western countries. But look at the numerous instances of other countries!

Modern States, by reserving most socially important activities to themselves, strengthen or multiply statism and thereby facilitate the task of anyone aspiring to dictatorship. He has no longer to defeat most citizens, jealous of their liberties and independence, but has, primarily only to replace those who presently possess already large powers in a State. Once he is elected or has usurped power without this camouflage, he becomes hard to get rid of again, at least for several years and is likely to be displaced only by other "leadership types" or despots. From an elected position to one of usurped despotism only a short distance need nowadays be crossed.

A right to resist a government, which has offended against human rights, is today recognized only by very few governments and even there largely only on paper. Hardly any government concedes its subjects the means to carry out a successful resistance, i.e. weapons and military organization.

The situation would be very different in future. With the programme: freedom for exterritorial and autonomous of volunteers, any dictatorship could be relatively easily and with a minimum of bloodshed overthrown. New dictatorships could then no longer be established easily. With this kind of aim, the various opposition groups, instead of engaging mainly in in-fighting, could then use their combined forces against the dictatorship. No group would any longer have to be afraid that it would, afterwards, be dominated by one of the other competing groups. All of them could become exterritorially autonomous - to the extent that they would desire this.

The armies of the dictatorship would desert and perhaps likewise establish, at least temporarily, exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers - or their members would join, the existing ones. Why should they fight? A conquest of their native country would no longer threaten - because of the prevailing exterritorial and personal law

54

associations. Between them, they could realize any of their ideals without having to fight down any enemy first - except their own dictatorial government. Consequently, the dictatorship will in vain appeal to nationalistic sentiments.

On the contrary, the revolutionaries and external enemies of a dictatorship could successfully appeal to such sentiments, especially by appealing to the suppressed national minorities and offering them full autonomy.

The weapons monopoly, one of the mainstays of dictatorships, will also be undermined. Firstly, by the example of free societies made up of armed citizens, then by the appeal of the free societies to the conscripts of dictatorships, to join the free societies, while staying under arms and adopting whatever personal laws they like, further by the revolutionary programmes, especially programmes for military insurrections, spread by the free societies, then by suppressed civilians arming themselves and inviting the soldiers to join them against the oppressive regime.

The internationally federated local militias in all countries would be the natural enemies of all dictatorships and together they would form the greatest military defensive power - and liberating power - this world has ever seen. Dictators are characterised by their suppression of human rights and the militias would be the ultimate defenders of human rights. These militias would be formed soon after the introduction of the right of individuals to secede and once established could easily defeat all present and future dictatorships or even prevent their establishment, if they organise and proceed as described in Sections V and VI of this book.

Today's social order is based on the principle of subordination. Among its disadvantages are: The obedient soldier does not desert, not even from the army of a Hitler or a Stalin. The obedient citizen follows the instructions even of a dictator, works for him and pays him taxes and accepts his inflated paper money. Today the subordination of the prospective victims to the holders of atomic weapons means, in the long run, with almost 100% certainty, the end of mankind.

Since territorial States are built upon subordination it is quite foreign to their nature, seeing they expect absolute obedience from the own subjects, to attempt to defeat a foreign government mainly by appealing to its citizens and soldiers to disobey it and to undertake all the measures required to achieve this disobedience. In a framework of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, on the other hand, a dictatorship could exist at most only for a few days - because it would not be elected and if it were, it would be recallable and, most importantly, every dissenter could easily withdraw from it by individual secession and would also have the physical means to resist it in protection of his rights- and almost all the world would be his ally in this. Such free communities would, quite in accordance with their nature, appeal to conscripts of dictatorships to join the rightful governments or communities of their own individual choice rather than fighting for an imposed regime.

The aim of general strikes, which they generally do not achieve, against dictatorships and warmongering governments, can easily be achieved by means of the right of individuals to secede. Formally one is no longer subjected to the constitution, laws, rules, administration etc. of the dictatorial regime, thus it would be senseless to strike against it. One condemns the regime to powerlessness by ceasing to be its subject. One increases the number of its enemies by joining their exterritorial and autonomous communities or by establishing new and independent ones as alternatives to the dictatorship. To the extent that such resistance is also non-violent, production and exchange are not interfered with at all, i.e., the economic support of the revolutionaries and the general population is not endangered and no new enemies are made to the revolutionary cause. This measure harms exclusively the dictatorship and not, like the general strike, the fellow citizens.

Against the supporters of a general strike, soldiers can almost always be found who are prepared to shoot at these striking men. If, instead of striking the resistance consisted out of tolerant secessions, the soldiers would rather join the secessionists than shoot at them. Through certain measures, described below, one could almost make certain

55

that they would fraternise with the self-liberating resistance groups.

Most advocates of the General Strikes have also managed to overlook that a truly general strike would include both: a strike of the government's soldiers and a strike of the taxpayers. Either of these could already achieve what is aimed at with a general strike. Combine these two measures with individual secessionism, the arming and military organization of citizens in volunteer militias for the protection of human rights and with a better and freer organization of production and exchange than is the case now, then all the rightful objectives of general strikes can be easily achieved while avoiding the wrongful and senseless aspects.

General strikes could and should be replaced by much more effective citizen strikes.

Only a territorial State can acquire the means to conduct a wrongful war against the will of the people - by means of taxation, forced loans and the issue of forced currency.

Only a territorial State can uphold a money monopoly and thereby enforce armament by allocating its monopolistic means of payment predominantly to armament factories and refusing them largely to the consumer goods industry.

As subject to a territorial State one cannot carry out an effective tax strike or resist a forced loan or the forced currency or direct requisitioning of the government. Neither can one easily resist, as long as one remains a subject, moreover, an unarmed and unorganised one, the imposition of maximum prices and delivery quotas. The acceptance of inferior State paper money (inferior because of the "financing" of war expenditures with the note printing press, i.e. the issue of legal tender money) cannot be simply refused when such actions are penalised with death, as happened during the Red Terror of the French Revolution. (Most of the guillotine executions during this period took place as a result of people, in one way or the other, decrying the inferior paper money, the Assignats, and asking for honest currency or market prices instead. This made them automatically, in the eyes of the revolutionary regime, "enemies of the republic".)

This refusal to accept a regime's paper money at all or at par with its nominal value, cannot be easily carried out when there are neither private alternative means of payment available, which one could prefer to those of the government, nor alternative standards of value in use. Obviously, then one cannot sue before any government court against the imposition of governmental means of payment and its paper standard for the payment of any debt.

In the proposed exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers tax payment would also be voluntary, i.e. it would take place exclusively for desired services, supplied competitively at free market prices. This would, obviously, make the financing of anti-people weapons and of a war, against the will of the people, impossible. Who would voluntarily remain in an exterritorial and autonomous community of volunteers which would take up forced loans or would give its tax foundation money a monopoly position and legal tender in order to gain the means to finance a war?

Although the leadership of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers might, formally, levy taxes or compulsory contributions from all its members, these would not be coercive taxes in today's meaning. As the membership is voluntary these taxes would also be voluntary. People would not join, in sufficient numbers, those associations which would levy contributions for foreign adventures. They would leave communities attempting to raise war funds by taxes or begin effective tax strikes. Governments of the present type, on the other hand, can always suppress tax strikes which are not accompanied by successful insurrectionist attempts - as experience has shown many times.

A completely unrestrained sovereignty is the ideal of every territorial government. This does not only, mostly, prevent the international organizations and understandings required to eliminate war but does also actively promote many conflicts and even wars.

56

Recognition of the principle of sovereignty leads inevitably to a policy of non-intervention with the so-called "internal affairs" or "territorial integrity" of another State. Consequently, dictatorships can develop in many States undisturbed until they are finally powerful enough to attack neighbouring countries. Compare the development of the Nazi regime. Non-recognition of any judge or arbitrator above oneself belongs also to this concept of territorial, collective and centralist sovereignty. Without such a mediator between territorial States, one with enforcement means for his just decisions, it will often be impossible to settle conflicts between such States in a peaceful way.

According to the ruling theory the decision making power over war and peace is just part of the sovereign authority of a government. We have already mentioned that this power is war promoting. The same applies for instance to the power to make laws on money and finance, laws outlawing e.g. freedom of note issue and free choice of value standards.

How could or would these advantages be avoided by the proposed communities? They would not possess sovereignty in the present sense, which is largely a territorial sovereignty of governments as opposed to a sovereignty among a more or less uniform people, constituted in a voluntary protective community that is exterritorially autonomous.

Due to voluntary membership, sovereignty in these new communities would remain with the people. All their institutions would be truly representative. Unity would not only be presumed to exist or imposed but would be real. These communities would be based on individual human rights.

Their leaders would be recallable, formally, or in practice - the latter due to the voluntary membership. They would have only voluntary followers thus could not secure any large privileges for themselves.

Sovereignty of the old type would be excluded by clauses in the constitutions of these communities which are similar to the Article 27 of the French Constitution of 1793:

Sovereignty in the present meaning permits the legalized but essentially arbitrary restriction of human rights. It institutionalises a situation in which and that no one can be held responsible for official wrongful actions.

The rightful militia, which would, inevitably, be formed under individual secessionism, in order to protect individual human rights and natural rights of rational beings, would no longer tolerate any sovereign ruler, not even a sovereign parliament - whenever either attempted to impose their will upon members of other communities.

The autonomy of exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers would be limited by the human rights and natural rights of rational beings claimed by the own members or by members of other communities.

- Ulrich von Beckerath

The danger of war arises out of the mere existence of States of the present type (territorial States) and cannot be abolished by them. The conduct of wrongful wars is possible only through the concentration of power in the hands of governments and parliaments. Originally at least some States may have been established with the intention to protect with them the lives and the property of their citizens. By now they are certainly no longer able to protect the lives and property of their subjects. On the contrary: Even the democratic territorial States constitute, unintentionally, a great danger for the own citizens and the subjects of all other States - if they provided themselves with nuclear weapons (or similar devices) or permit allies to keep them in readiness.

Any area in which nuclear weapons are stored or in which nuclear power plants exist, will attract the enemy government's nuclear destructive devices. As deterrents the own nuclear devices are insufficient and for defence they are unsuitable and their victims are not served by retaliatory strikes with them.

Every government which keeps nuclear or other mass extermination devices in readiness threatens thereby - and also through the risk of an unintentional initiation of a nuclear war - the own subjects (not only foreign ones) with complete annihilation.

(To that extent the protection contract between citizens and governments has been broken by governments and is therefore no longer binding upon the citizens. They owe no longer obedience to a government that threatens their very survival merely by its existence & its military policies. - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

57

Governments which neither possess nuclear weapons nor were targeted themselves are also unable to protect their subjects from the indirect effects of a general and large scale exchange of nuclear (and similar) devices for mass murder and mass destruction. Radioactive pollution would only assure them a later and slower death.

Consequently, all governments have by now broken the most important precondition for the validity of the citizen-government contract: Safeguarding the citizens and their liberties, lives and property, in return for the subordination and tax payments of the citizens. They have become altogether unable to keep this contract, much more obviously and seriously than ever before. By this breach, failure, omission or incapacity, they have dissolved, one-sidedly, the relationship between rulers and ruled, governments and subjects. Neither are the governments any longer bound, as a consequence, to attempt to supply these or any other services, nor are the former citizens. The relationship between them has been annulled by the governments - regardless whether and to what extent the participants have realized this so far. A state of nature exists between them, again, actually, and morally - not yet according to the prevailing beliefs. But this will follow.

Those who were so far rulers and representatives have thus become reduced in their position to ordinary citizens and possess only their rights and responsibilities. As they largely merely shared the prejudices and ignorance of their subjects and voters in this respect, they can hardly be singled out and held responsible for having brought us into the present dangerous situation. At most they were only the high priests of the predominant faith on social, political, economic and military affairs.

The most important right and the supreme duty of every rational being in the present situation is to cooperate in the establishment of a lasting world peace and therefore in the realisation of a just society - largely by the removal of all artificial barriers and obstacles against it. This follows from the fact that no place in this world is any longer safe from nuclear rockets, the fact that no safe retreat remains for any peace loving citizen.

In this situation only the possibility to establish and live in exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers offers a way out. They cannot seriously endanger the lives of their members and far less the existence of mankind. On the contrary: they would be our only guaranties for survival.

This case has been stated in more details in my handbook: An ABC Against Nuclear War, in PEACE PLANS 16-18. (Later in PEACE PLANS No 16 & 17, which is for the time being also available digitised, through e-mail in RTF, upon request, at no charge. - J.Z., 9.12.02.)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

- Margaret Mead, Conversations with Henry Brandon, NEW REPUBLIC, June 23, 1959.