LIBERTARIAN MICROFICHE PUBLISHING - PEACE PLANS - ON PANARCHY MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM NEWSLETTER, c/o John Zube, 7 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW 2577, Australia 19 March 1991, YeagerWB.391 Wayne B. Yeager, GRF Press, 2050 Idle Hour Centre # 108, Lexington, KY 40 502, USA. Dear Wayne, thanks for your letter of 12/26/90 and a review copy of Above the Law, the complete guide to obtaining Diplomatic Immunity. I could not reply before because I came back from a 12 months trip of meetings and literature collection efforts only on Feb. 28th, 91. I would like to do more than merely review your book and any updates of it - by completely reproducing them in my sub-series, called On Panarchy, with a revocable and non-exclusive permission from you for my microfiche reproduction. There are 16 volumes so far in this sub-series, a materials collection and many more are planned. In the end they are to be pulled together, into something like an encyclopedia of personal law, exterritorial autonomy, experimental freedom, parallell institutions, capitulations, consular jurisdiction etc. and all their other precedents. Alternatively and even preferably, I would like you to do the microfilming yourself or let someone else do it for you at his expense, making your title thus PERMANENTLY and at least POSSIBLY much more cheaply accessible. On your page 3 you fail to mention the much more widely spread history of personal law, one older and longer lasting than that of territorial nationalism and sovereignty. To retain or choose one's nationality while living in another country was once the right of all free persons, not just of diplomats. What is now called diplomatic immunity is a tiny remnant of that tradition and a distorted one, too. But then, what natural rights have not been distorted by legislation like that of 1708 which you mention? From the remaining rightful and sensible practice of immunity at least for ambassadors etc. FROM AGGRESSIVE ACTS in the host country, the legislators turned it into CRIMINAL IMMUNITY even for crimes committed by ambassadors in the host country against citizens of the host country. That criminal extension of immunity ought not to be maintained, far less extended to everybody but, rather, abolished for everybody. Only all CREATIVE ACTIVITIES should be reseased from restrictions and prohibitions, for everybody. Thus I hold your all-over approach to be conceptually wrong, in spite of its rightful core. At the same time, as a historical and contemporary survey of the status of diplomatic immunity your paper seems to have great value. I know of no equivalent. And it does familiarize many people with at least some instances of competing law systems in the same territory. Much more widely spread are the retained nationalities of occupying forces. Furthermore, in the daily numerous choices of private lives in the relatively free countries, almost everybody makes exterritorial and autonomous decisions regardless of laws and wishes of the majority and considers it his or her right to do so. That practice has just to be extended to political, social and economic affairs that are now without justification or any good motive collectivised, monopolized, centralized etc. The question is not should diplomatic immunity be abolished or retained and applied to everyone but, rather, how much of diplomatic immunity should be abolished for everybody and how much should be realized for everybody. The aggressive features should be abolished, the defensive ones retained and generalized. A similar distinction should be made as for the integration versus segregation question. Instead of discussing only COMPULSORY integration and COMPULSORY segregation ( according to race or religion or whatever ), INDIVIDUALS ought to be given or take the right to opt either for VOLUNTARY integration or VOLUNTARY segregation - and this requires an EXTERRITORIAL settlement, once in accordance with long-standing traditions forgotten only by ignorant and indifferent to prejudiced territorial nationalists. Alas, that covers presently the majority of all people. The rightful origin of most future diplomatic immunity for rightful i.e. self-concerned or voluntaristic actions only for all who desire this option, will be the assertion of inbdividual sovereignty via individual secessionism and voluntary and exterritorial associationism. These aspect you have not yet discussed but they are discussed extensively in my literature. I have a year's mail to catch up with and x projects from before my trip and arising out of my trip. Thus I cannot further read and discuss your booklet further, at present. But I do hope that at least we will remain in touch. Quite a few people are by now exploring the exterritorial alternatives and I know of no better solutions for most of the major problems of our times. The democratic and republican territorial models are primitive, nay downright dangerous and wrongful compared with it. Panarchism offers a rightful framework for all creative activities - and for all flaws, errors, mistakes and prejudices imposed only upon oneself and like-minded people. I am sending you a sample : Shih Shun Liu : Exterritoriality... PP 383 and my literature list in PP 868, as well as some leaflets, Cols & Rows, Taylor & Nettlau on Pan. PIOT, John Zube.