Moreover, confining individual sovereignty to one's home, garden, farm, business or real estate is also not the truly liberating solution and does not correspond to the idea "personal law" and voluntary communities but merely drives the "principle" of territorial sovereignty to an extreme, somewhat indicated by the old proverb: "A man's home is his castle!" - This makes sense only with regard to various official inspectors and privacy invasions.
Hermits were mostly not quite sane and admirable persons and were made even worse through their chosen lifestyle.

What is really meant by individual sovereignty extending to individual secessionism, is not a kind of chain-reaction, one leading to social atomism, with everyone being a King - but only over himself and no social interaction and commitments at all, but a radical and peaceful as well as peace, justice and liberty promoting reform that would lead to genuine and wider but quite voluntary communities, as wide or limited as people desire for themselves. The few voluntary or cooperative socialists had something similar in mind.

Not only free disassociation is involved but also free associationism, regardless of present prescribed and coercively upheld geographical frontiers, jurisdictions, constitutions, laws and police and military powers. E.g. several but quite voluntary world federations. E.g. free trade among the Free Traders and, at the same time and in the same countries and world-wide: Protectionism or total autarchy being experimented with among the voluntary victims of such faiths.

When one speaks of the right of individuals to "secede" from a tennis or golf club, or ending one's subscription to a magazine, that does not mean that in future or immediately one may not join or subscribe to another. We do that in our private actions all the time. Only our disassociation and association rights and liberties - in the sphere of political, economic and social systems - are still suppressed and subjected to territorial impositions regarding which we have at best only one voice, each, among millions.

When one achieves a divorce from an unsatisfactory partner, then that does not mean that one has to live singly for the rest of one's life. Panarchism introduces divorce and options for other alliances or dalliances, from the matrimonial and sexual relations sphere into that of political, economic and social system associations. From one-night stands to life-long commitments. Each to his or her choice.

The most famous precedent is religious tolerance or religious liberty. It did not mean atheism or a separate and different faith for each of the dissenters and secessionists from the monopolistic territorial and hierarchical church. Churches and sects multiplied and wherever they could do so quite freely peace tended to reign between them.

The current "right to vote" does neither establish sufficient "consumer sovereignty" and "free consumer choice" in this sphere, nor does it provide sufficient "free enterprise" and freedom for cooperators, mutualists, decentralists, communalists and voluntaryists of all kinds - to do their own things quite autonomously for and to themselves.

While I am an individualist anarchist - and even among them are many dissenting groups - I would not want to impose such a lifestyle or system upon anyone who has other values.
It was the main problem for most kinds of anarchists, so far, that they imagined that their ideal should be realized among all those, too, who are opposed to it, rather than merely among those anarchists who managed to agree, sufficiently, among themselves.
The same applies to libertarians.

Panarchism means: Any form of anarchism - but only for its adherents. Any form of libertarianism, but only for its supporters. And any form of statism, local to world wide - but only for its supporters.

Men are by nature joiners but also, to a considerable degree, dissenters, secessionists, intent on doing things their ways and choosing them for themselves.
That is expressed in ten-thousands of private associations, whose membership more or less changes all the time. New ones are established while old ones collapse.
The same is to be achieved in the sphere of political, economic and social systems, without any compulsion except the defence of the right of individuals to leave such a system and join another or to establish one of their own and invite others to subscribe to it.

Only a few might become relative "hermits" and join no group and make only daily or weekly contracts with others on their shopping trips for all kinds of services and goods, without committing themselves to any particular society and community.
This kind of "madness" of individuals and families of non-joiners is already wide-spread in private lives. It should also be permissible in public lives.
They bargain and trade or boycott voluntarily and thus act sufficiently social and peaceful, rather than antagonistically.
"Liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order!"

With the following qualification: The all-out non-joiners and non-members should at least declare which adjudication or arbitration system they do subscribe to - in case it still comes to a clash. Otherwise, in case of strong disagreements, that might still occur, just like the occasional fight or brawl or crime, they would expose themselves to becoming subjected to the jurisdiction chosen by others for themselves, others with different scales of values, punishment and indemnification options.
If they do place themselves into the status of wild animals, threatening beasts of prey, like habitual criminals, in a neighbourhood, i.e., beings from whom any arbitrary attack might be expected at any time, e.g. upon their interpretation of "egoism" or application of the "might is right" doctrine, then they might even be rightfully driven out of a neighborhood or imprisoned in it. They must establish some sort of civilized relationships and guarantees towards others and be it only by some sufficient arbitration or insurance arrangement.
(Justice is something much too precious to be entrusted to politicians and bureaucrats and their systems - unless this is done merely among like-minded volunteers.)

But most people, at least for the foreseeable future, would then already have subscribed to a particular panarchy or polyarchy (there are dozens of other terms for the same voluntary relationships), which would offer them a kind of package-deal for societal services, including juridical ones.

Most people do not want to make all possible and needed decisions themselves, quite independently and they need not only tradesmen and professionals to help them, but also individuals or groups that organize things for them, sometimes even down to organizing a socializing party for them, with many guests expected. That factor has been termed "decidophobia" in a best-selling book. By now we even get officially organized "festivals"!

We are still somewhat herd animals, with only the "rogue bull" etc. remaining un-social or anti-social, sometimes only in his old age. So we do not have to fear a condition of total atomization of society.
What will result will be a multitude of voluntary societies, all doing merely their things for and to themselves, just like the numerous private clubs and associations already do, and this without getting into each other's way.

However, the phenomenon of the growing number of people living as "singles" should be explored further, instead of being merely observed. I'm not sure about all the cause and effect relationships involved here.

De facto relationships have also largely replaced officially sanctioned marriages and, after some time, they are even recognized by officials, as if they were officially sanctioned marriages.

The footballers do not battle the soccer players in the streets, as long as they can have their own way among themselves. They may even share the same sports field, just using it at different times.

The various radicals, reformers and utopians, today, by territorialism, sometimes even driven (in their opinion) to suicidal and mass murderous terrorist acts, will tend to become rather peaceful, productive and enlightened under this kind of option, at least by and by, learning or teaching by the free and experimental method.
They will have to put their money and their labour where there mouth is and their flawed experiments will tend to fail soon, if they are not reformed and this before masses are herded into and submitted to a single system. Thus they will not provoke resistance and clashes.
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
"May the buyer beware!"
However, there will also be xyz consumer-protection arrangements on a voluntary basis, to defend their genuine rights rather than imposed legal "rights" or claims.

I feel certain that among the much larger population of England there was not only the single case of an individual secessionist that you mention. In Australia we had about 20 of them so far, with the largest a farmer, Len Casly, in Western Australia, with his 18 000 acres. There was King Ron of Waragamba Dam, and the owner of a local pie shop, near Robertson.
In my microfiched series PEACE PLANS, I reproduced whatever little details I got on these individual secessionists. None of them, by the way, subscribed to personal law and exterritorial autonomy panarchism. Each thought of himself as a territorial sovereign. The Duke of Avram, in Tasmania, did not even think of himself as a secessionist, although he opened his own note-issuing bank for a while - until closed down by the police.

What I understand under monetary freedom is not merely the attempt by a few individuals to issue their own individual notes and clearing certificates, but a voluntary arrangement between all people interested in free exchange, for their own note issuing and clearing centres and methods. Private or cooperative payment communities would result, in practice, from full monetary and clearing freedom.
They would opt out of the central bank system, with its monetary despotism, not in order to do away with money or offer only their own individual monies to each other, but to associate, appropriately, voluntarily, as much as seems advisable to them, to issue their local or wider currencies, all without legal tender and a monopoly in general circulation, all subject to voluntary acceptance and market rating - except for the issuers themselves, for they must fully recognize their own IOUs.
That does not mean atomization of monetary and clearing exchanges but their full and free realization, among like-minded people.

With panarchism it is the same. Monetary freedom is only one aspect of it. All other individual rights, like the right to choose one's profession, arrange for one's housing and education, are other aspects of it.

Likewise, voluntary taxation and voluntarily subscribed to and competing budgets for public services, for different communities, would result from individual choices in these spheres. There would not only be individual and family as well as business budgets.

Human rights recognition would be the glue that would hold the various panarchies together and also would prevent them from interfering with the internal affairs of volunteers, in which these might restrict some of the individual human rights of their voluntary members, like Catholics would, for instance, regarding censorship for to them undesirable materials, in their communities.

The State of New South Wales and even my local government are already all too independent of my own preferences and those of various of my neighbours and of the other dissenting residents in NSW. The local government is widely hated for what it can legally do and does do to its subjects. Both still resort all too much to coercion and extortion rather than to individual consent. As territorialists they can hardly do otherwise. They are not even restrained by direct democracy, at least, which, obviously, could not satisfy the local minorities, either.

State governments and local governments of today are also far removed from the much more decentralized and autonomous models of the old English tradition, as described e.g. by J. Toulmin Smith in his 1851 book: Local Self-Government and Centralization, which I reproduced on microfiche in PEACE PLANS 22, 409 pages, but have not yet scanned-in. These local governments were really independent of the King and could ignore his laws and jurisdiction. They also had a fully autonomous jury system, like Lysander Spooner described it and some modern libertarians advocate.

However, those majorities, which want to organize themselves locally, state-wide, nation-wide and world-wide, would not be obstructed by panarchism becoming generally realized. They would be likewise liberated, to do their own things for and to themselves, via individual choices: individuals seceding from their present ties and joining their "clubs" and their activities, all self-concerned and self-financed.

Once the decentralists of the world become aware that their decentralization attempts do not have to be confined to territorial attempts only - then they might rapidly become a great power for the realization of their diverse ideals, each only for the own supporters.

Only as long as they subscribe to territorialism, even if only at the State or local government level, they remain their own worst enemies and do provoke a maximum opposition against themselves, which they might overcome only by decades to centuries of struggles, if at all, and then they would still have to struggle against further secessions from themselves and further voluntary federation attempts among their dissenters.

Let people sort themselves out according to their own individual preferences!
They will not prefer, as a rule, atomization, or individual full sovereignty, in the meaning of their own individual country, territory or society - but a great variety of societies and communities, all only exterritorially autonomous, all with voluntary membership only, whether many or only relatively few members. That, too, will be up to them.

Only by that choice will we avoid remaining targets for ABC mass murder devices, will we end the motives to use them, the means to build them and keep them in readiness.

Otherwise, we will maintain collective responsiblity notions and act upon them, which leads ultimately to the development, construction and stockpiling of mass murder devices or anti-people "weapons", with whole nations or peoples considered as "enemies" and "justified" targets.

Only thus can we avoid the nuclear war atomization or radioactive poisoning of mankind and bring the territorial warfare States to an end.
One large Hydrogen bomb on Sydney could wipe out 90 % of the NSW population. A handful on the other Australian cities and 90 % of the Australian population would be extinguished immediately and much of the rest not long after, due to the consequences of these strikes against supposed collective "enemies".
(Australia may already be composed of more different ethnic groups than any other country. So who could rightfully consider all its inhabitants as class, ethnic, religious or ideological enemies, unless they are all perceived and organized territorially, in a single model, imposed upon all its residents, however further territorially it may be divided? Only a tiny group of men at the top can commit all of Australia to a war. And then the maps show all of Australia as an "enemy" of another mapped country, State, nation or "people", leading to quite wrong conclusions and actions.

There are still xyz powerful people playing such "war games", starting with as wrong territorialist premises and having the monopolistic decision-making power to put these games into action. They, too, have no clear notion of their panarchistic alternatives and nothing in their constitution, education, media and reading steers them in that direction.
Conscientious policemen can seek out and render individual criminals harmless. Military men, with nuclear weapons, or large divisions, cannot.

Even the Arabs, in their great Islamic conquests, were more tolerant, accepted converts and tolerated some other people, who also revered some "holy" book.

Already the small territorial city States of ancient Greeks fought each other for all too long - based upon territorial institutions and prejudices.
If already they had clearly perceived and organized exterritorialist alternatives ...

Alas, the ancient and primitive notion and practice of territorial monopolies prevailed and dominated mankind for all too long, while the rightful and exterritorialist personal law traditions and ideas of mankind became largely forgotten. Now, at last, a systematic attempt is being made to revive, develop and publish them. Even in our times the most enlightened ideas are not yet the most popular and most widely practised ones.

But in spheres where free experimentation is common, like in computer and Internet developments, progress is fast and peaceful - apart from some monopolies made possible by government legislation.

All serious decentralists should thoroughly explore the exterritorialist decentralization option themselves, instead of merely continuing to subscribe to the territorialist model, as if it were the only rightful and sensible one. - I believe it is neither, after considering it for more than half a century.
You might, finally, after careful consideration of many of the references now offered or findable, arrive at the same conclusion.

Since you have already established a world-wide reputation as a decentralist, one in favour of the "human scale", your further stepping in this direction might have world-wide consequences.
At least I do hope for them.

The "human scale" is also to be applied and can be applied productively and with greater and wider spread personal satisfaction to large enterprises and corporations. Many steps in this direction were already taken. Many more are still to be recognized as needed or desirable.

What have you got to lose, except your troubles with struggles for territorial secessionism?
With exterritorialism you would not, similarly, have to struggle with vested interest and firmly established majority opinions.

Panarchism would even make it much more easy and pleasant for majorities to have their way, among themselves, quite undisturbed by dissenters and non-conformists.
Thus, theoretically, it would not be quite impossible that this would be the one reform that is first embraced, in practice, by the majority, rather than merely by a small minority of radicals.

Formerly majorities banished dissenters or excommunicated them or outlawed them. As panarchists majorities might rid themselves of them by allowing them to live at their own expense and risk and under what the majorities believe to be the errors of their ways, their foolishness, foibles and madness. They would expect to see free circus performances provided by them and to have the last laugh about their silly actions. On many of the free actions of dissenters they would even be right.

By one simple decision the majorities could rid themselves of all the "crackpots", "non-conformists", "dissenters", "reactionaries" and "trouble-makers", excommunicating them, granting them their "fool's liberty". Maybe a political party will win with a corresponding election slogan - and thus introduce panarchism?

PIOT, John Zube.

Copyright © 2005, 2006 John Zube

* In order to fully understand this article, you need to know the position of Mr. Kirkpatrick Sale of the The Middlebury Institute on Panarchy, which he expressed the following way in an email message of December 28, 2005 to Mr. John Zube and which triggered the article as an answer:
Dear Mr. Zube--
Thank you for you recent letter, which Jane Dwinell has passed on to me. You are right to think that we are mainly concerned with geographic secession, since this has been the only kind of secession of importance heretofore. You are also right to think that there could be secessions from secessionist states, and that should be protected as a matter of course.
   But if you'll forgive me, it seems quite mad to carry that process out to the individual. That is what is called individualist anarchy, and it has been a favorite of certain anarchist thinkers for a century, but it really has nothing to do with secession. And of course if you think getting a majority for secession is difficult and costly and uncertain, you must also agree that getting the world, or only a small part of it, to agree to individual "panarchy" is difficult to the point of impossible.
   I have a letter from aman in England who has seceeded from the United Kingdom, and proclaimed a Republic of one on his 6 acre estate. All that succeeded in doing was to get the government after him for refusing to pay taxes, and now his estate is forfeited to the government, which at the moment is allowing him to live there. So much for panarchy.
   Time to think about something real--an independent New South Wales, for example.
   Regards,
    Kirkpatrick Sale
    Middlebury Institute
    Middleburyinstitute.net